England VS Scotland Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Quite looking forward to this game, anyone know what sort of attendance is expected? I reckon could be closer than people think. A few of my English mates reckon 4-0 or 5-0 wins but just don't think that'll happen tbh, hopefully I'm not wrong! Wish game culd have been at Hampden so there would have been cracking atmosphere but I'm hoping Wembley surprises me although I'm not expecting it. I hope to see Bridcutt play, not seen too much of him but impressed by limited amount I've seen. And I hope Rooney plays too.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

CFCNick wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

Not really. Your best players play in the English "messiah of football".

The point is that they didn't automatically become class players by joining English clubs. Class is permanent. As for slating our players - I seem to recall Steven Fletcher being top scorer in the EPL (of British-born players) at an unfashionable club in Sunderland. Basically, in any case I see the EPL going down the same lines of the SPL. For years it has been Celtic or Rangers whereas the EPL now is a closed shop of either United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City being guaranteed winners. The other worrying trend you should all worry about is the foreigners flooding the top teams leaving English players frozen out. That happened in the SPL a few years ago as well and it definitely hinders.

False.

Lampbard, Bale and last night's victor Lambert all scored more goals in the EPL last season.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

CFCNick wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:If that is the case then it must be remembered that all of our team last night stemmed from Scottish club football whilst the England side from their perceived Messiah of football so surely we should have seen a far more comprehensive win...no? Not long ago Scotland played Brazil in a 'friendly' and Brazil won 2-0 and were not at home either. Think on...

Not really. Your best players play in the English "messiah of football".

The point is that they didn't automatically become class players by joining English clubs. Class is permanent. As for slating our players - I seem to recall Steven Fletcher being top scorer in the EPL (of British-born players) at an unfashionable club in Sunderland. Basically, in any case I see the EPL going down the same lines of the SPL. For years it has been Celtic or Rangers whereas the EPL now is a closed shop of either United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City being guaranteed winners. The other worrying trend you should all worry about is the foreigners flooding the top teams leaving English players frozen out. That happened in the SPL a few years ago as well and it definitely hinders.

You mean to say the BPL isn't already flooded with foreigners?

To be fair to your British top scorer comment. If Rooney has a bad season it's always someone at an unfashionable club. Last season Lambert and Lampard were tied at 15 each.

Yes up to a point though as he missed the last two or three months of the season due to injury. But point taken.

'To be fair'??? Why? He's completely wrong!

It is already happening and it is starving your youngsters of football. Did Arsenal not send out a team in the Champions League stacked full of foreigners last season? United are also packed full of overseas players as are Chelsea and Manchester City. English players at those clubs are in the minority and that has to be a concern.

We've known about foreigners impacting on our national development for years, F.A do nothing about it because all they care about is the money the EPL produces through it's exciting football that the foreigners mainly produce. Add in the TV deals and it's going to continue for many years to come, get over it.

Will be interesting to see how much time James Milner gets this year for Man City and Oxlade-Chamberlain because his career in particular is just stagnating at Arsenal.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Boy oh boy Duty I think you are in for a major disappointment next summer if you are predicting England to go beyond the Quarter-Finals at very best. Heck you have still to qualify yet and that is still not clear cut. Shouldn't it be if you are oozing world class players? Look at the other perrenial challengers:-

Italy top of their table by 4 points and look home and hosed.

Germany top of their table and five points clear - similarly home and hosed.

Holland top of their table and seven points clear - must be close to qualification.

Spain a point clear of France at the top of their table.

And where are England? Top of their table? No. They are second and granted you have a game in hand but you also have Ukraine and Poland breathing down your necks. Not the hallmarks of a potential World Cup challenging team is it?

Yawn.

Some of Italy's results at 2006 world cup qualifying:

Moldova 0-1 Italy
Slovenia 1-0 Italy
Italy 4-3 Belarus
Norway 0-0 Italy
Scotland 1-1 Italy
Italy 2-1 Moldova

So after struggling through, they went on to win the world cup. And I didn't say England are oozing world-class players, please stop saying false things.

John wrote:We've known about foreigners impacting on our national development for years, F.A do nothing about it because all they care about is the money the EPL produces through it's exciting football that the foreigners mainly produce. Add in the TV deals and it's going to continue for many years to come, get over it.

Will be interesting to see how much time James Milner gets this year for Man City and Oxlade-Chamberlain because his career in particular is just stagnating at Arsenal.

Annoyingly Arsenal have a good few important young English players we need to hope they don't let falter: Ox, Walcott, Wilshere.

TopHat24/7 wrote:'To be fair'??? Why? He's completely wrong!

Wrong about Fletcher but I was going along the unfashionable club line. Andy Johnson was top English scorer in 04-05 for a relegated Palace side.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Colan (niner) wrote:and that wasn't a scotland free kick? ref just doesn't want us to score 2nd. Sorry but England fans are awful in terms of noise, never impressed by them considering the big attendence

It's an irrelevant friendly against a team nobody cares about anymore.

Saw everyone coming down on the train, it's middle aged men taking their kids to the 'England at Wembley'.  It's the old 'this is your Cup final' addage.

Away fans in being louder than home ones shocker

It's clear England are a second string National side, never likely to challenge beyond QF and sitting alongside Sweden, Belgium, Croatia , Russia etc in International standing.
They aren't failures being knocked out in QF or 2nd Round, that's just their natural level.

Kay Fabe wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:England have the tools to win the world cup, with a bit of luck, and a couple of players hitting a purple patch, they may just pull off the greatest of great escapes. Last 4 has to be the minimum aim.

And CC, remember what I said about Italy in 06. They barely qualified, but still won the world cup.

Sorry I come from the old school. By that I mean we have heard all this kind of talk before and seen England squads (better ones at that) come home with their tails between their legs and I saw nothing tonight that says the footballing super-powers have anything to fear.

Brazil lost 1-0 to switzerland so are you goiing to judge their possible wc performances by a loss tonight in a friendly?

You are missing the point Champers. He's drawing on history which righty states that we go into tournaments full of hope and never succeed.

England do not, by any stretch of the imagination Duty, have the tools.

To be fair to England the  4 of the last 5 tournaments england have played in they have lost 3 of them on penalties to top quality teams and lost one to a great brazil 2-1 in 2002.

You could argue that top teams put their penalties to bed Champers.

And England should have at least earned a draw against a 10 men Brazil with half an hour to go in 2002.

That wasn't a great Brazil side. In fact I'd argue that was the weakest World Cup I'd seen in my 35 years of existence.

Beat me too it mate, while Brazil had some fantastic players it wasn't a great team and I can't recall a more predictable World Cup before or after, I remember being 19 and betting £20 on Brazil to win and Ronaldo to be top goalscorer at 16/1, at the time it felt like buying money.

No-one seemed to be a threat to Brazil after France were eliminated, I'm not sure if the tournament was that bad or because the games here were at 7:30/9:30/11:30am that it didn't feel as important as I was at work for most of them so didnt get caught up as much as usual

i don't get how you are saying the brazil team of 2002 was poor. They had ronaldo, rivaldo, ronaldinho, roberto carlos, cafu, gilberto silva and kaka they had great players.

A few of the players in the 2002 team were also in the winning 1994 team and a lot of players in the 2002 team were also in the 1998 team that reached the final of the world cup in france 98.

Also that brazil team that contained many players from 2002 won the copa america in 97, 99, 2004 and 2007.

that brazil team that contained many players from 2002 also won the confederations cup in 97 and 2005.

I don't understand your basis for saying the 2002 brail world cup winning team was a poor team. They had dominated world football for a decade pretty much what spain is doing now. They had the best players in the world including ronaldo who was the top goal scorer at WC 02.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Boy oh boy Duty I think you are in for a major disappointment next summer if you are predicting England to go beyond the Quarter-Finals at very best. Heck you have still to qualify yet and that is still not clear cut. Shouldn't it be if you are oozing world class players? Look at the other perrenial challengers:-

Italy top of their table by 4 points and look home and hosed.

Germany top of their table and five points clear - similarly home and hosed.

Holland top of their table and seven points clear - must be close to qualification.

Spain a point clear of France at the top of their table.

And where are England? Top of their table? No. They are second and granted you have a game in hand but you also have Ukraine and Poland breathing down your necks. Not the hallmarks of a potential World Cup challenging team is it?

Yawn.

Some of Italy's results at 2006 world cup qualifying:

Moldova 0-1 Italy
Slovenia 1-0 Italy
Italy 4-3 Belarus
Norway 0-0 Italy
Scotland 1-1 Italy
Italy 2-1 Moldova

So after struggling through, they went on to win the world cup. And I didn't say England are oozing world-class players, please stop saying false things.

Actually on another thread you do claim England have world class players (in the plural) so if they haven't then perhaps you should stop saying false things. On the thread you say England have nine players playing in Champions League.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Boy oh boy Duty I think you are in for a major disappointment next summer if you are predicting England to go beyond the Quarter-Finals at very best. Heck you have still to qualify yet and that is still not clear cut. Shouldn't it be if you are oozing world class players? Look at the other perrenial challengers:-

Italy top of their table by 4 points and look home and hosed.

Germany top of their table and five points clear - similarly home and hosed.

Holland top of their table and seven points clear - must be close to qualification.

Spain a point clear of France at the top of their table.

And where are England? Top of their table? No. They are second and granted you have a game in hand but you also have Ukraine and Poland breathing down your necks. Not the hallmarks of a potential World Cup challenging team is it?

Yawn.

Some of Italy's results at 2006 world cup qualifying:

Moldova 0-1 Italy
Slovenia 1-0 Italy
Italy 4-3 Belarus
Norway 0-0 Italy
Scotland 1-1 Italy
Italy 2-1 Moldova

So after struggling through, they went on to win the world cup. And I didn't say England are oozing world-class players, please stop saying false things.

Actually on another thread you do claim England have world class players (in the plural) so if they haven't then perhaps you should stop saying false things. On the thread you say England have nine players playing in Champions League.

What I said was: "(England) have decent PL players in every position, with a select few who can be world-class on their day"

Yep, world-class players on their day - Wilshere, Rooney, Hart, Cole and Gerrard (though possibly past it now). Walcott may be in that bracket one day as well.  I didn't say England were oozing World-class players, which would probably indicate the majority of the squad.

And I think I said 8 players possibly starting for England play in the Champions League: Hart, Cole, Cahill, Wilshere, Cleverley, Walcott, Rooney, and Welbeck.

So not many world class players then yet possible World Cup winners in your eyes. Errm okay.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So not many world class players then yet possible World Cup winners in your eyes. Errm okay.

how many world class players did italy have in 06? 4 possibly 5 at most.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So not many world class players then yet possible World Cup winners in your eyes. Errm okay.

Yep, because that's all you need really. Good depth, no glaring weaknesses, and some spark in key attacking positions and you can easily pull it off.

Like Italy in 2006: They had a solid base, and a few (not many) world-class players in Buffon, Cannavaro, Pirlo, Totti, and possibly Toni. They then won the world cup.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So not many world class players then yet possible World Cup winners in your eyes. Errm okay.

how many world class players did italy have in 06? 4 possibly 5 at most.

My sentiment exactly.  

England have in my opinion one player of genuine quality and that is Ashley Cole and age may well have caught up with him by next summer.

Wilshere, fitness permitting, could go on to be a great player though.

Joe Hart is slowly morphing into another Paul Robinson. Luckily for him there's no real threat to his place. How many man sausage ups has he made in the past 18 months? and age isn't an excuse. 

Duty281 wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:So not many world class players then yet possible World Cup winners in your eyes. Errm okay.

how many world class players did italy have in 06? 4 possibly 5 at most.

My sentiment exactly.  

5 more than England.

Huge difference being that Italy have a winning mentality and would hazard a guess are all first team starters unlike a few in the England side at mo.

Are you going to tell me you know think that this game is evidence that Scotland are actually only a 1 goal loss worse than England? On the basis of one game?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Huge difference being that Italy have a winning mentality and would hazard a guess are all first team starters unlike a few in the England side at mo.

the italy team of 06 were very poor in qualifying barely scraping through. they also had match fixig scandels etc.

I think CC is simply trying to establish that Scotland are admittedly terrible, but that England are also a poor team, unlikely to improve on their previous showings in recent tournaments.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Huge difference being that Italy have a winning mentality and would hazard a guess are all first team starters unlike a few in the England side at mo.

Italy hadn't won anything for 24 years before the 2006 world cup.

They didn't have a winning mentality.

No but will use that as evidence that you are far from world cup contenders of semi or final proportions. That evidence is supported by your qualification position compared to the big European challengers. They are strolling through to the finals whilst England are still embroiled in a fierce battle.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No but will use that as evidence that you are far from world cup contenders of semi or final proportions. That evidence is supported by your qualification position compared to the big European challengers. They are strolling through to the finals whilst England are still embroiled in a fierce battle.

Like Italy were when striving to qualify for 2006 you mean?

CaledonianCraig wrote:No but will use that as evidence that you are far from world cup contenders of semi or final proportions. That evidence is supported by your qualification position compared to the big European challengers. They are strolling through to the finals whilst England are still embroiled in a fierce battle.

Brazil struggled to qualify in 2002 and they won it.
Italy struggled in 2006 and they won it.

Probably loads fo other examples i could find if i looked it up

The evidence is there for all to see.

Struggling to beat a Scotland side at its lowest ebb at home and struggling to qualify as well. If you see that as a measure of World Cup winning potential then I am staggered.

i agree its not great, england look dog awful at times but its all about peaking at the right time, pyschologically n physically at that's what the best teams seem to do. getting thru a qualifier group by the skin of your teeth or winning it by 10 points doesn't really matter come the actual tournament.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Huge difference being that Italy have a winning mentality and would hazard a guess are all first team starters unlike a few in the England side at mo.

Italy hadn't won anything for 24 years before the 2006 world cup.

They didn't have a winning mentality.

Still miles ahead of England though with two major runner ups

CaledonianCraig wrote:The evidence is there for all to see.

Struggling to beat a Scotland side at its lowest ebb at home and struggling to qualify as well. If you see that as a measure of World Cup winning potential then I am staggered.

obviously you are anti-england and will find any reason to knock england's chances of doing well but it is scraping the barrel to base englands hopes of doing well at the WC on a friendly game in august 3 days before the season starts.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The evidence is there for all to see.

Struggling to beat a Scotland side at its lowest ebb at home and struggling to qualify as well. If you see that as a measure of World Cup winning potential then I am staggered.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. This friendly does not matter. It's as unimportant as last year when England beat Italy 2-1.

Like Germany failed to beat Paraguay at home. Paraguay are doing very poorly and are bottom of their qualifying group, although you stated that Paraguay would be in Brazil.  

And as for the qualifiers, meh. England have never been able to field a fully-strength team yet in any of them, and 75% of their remaining games are at home so they should waltz in.

super_realist wrote:It's clear England are a second string National side, never likely to challenge beyond QF and sitting alongside Sweden, Belgium, Croatia , Russia etc in International standing.
They aren't failures being knocked out in QF or 2nd Round, that's just their natural level.

Pretty much so. Take away the 66 win on home soil, and your left with one WC and Euro semi final.
Historically, England have usually been at best, a QF team. Not sure why there is any disappointment whenever England get knocked out around that stage, its England's real level.
The current England team are draw specialists. Hard to beat but also have difficulty winning.
In fact, 60% of England's knockout games in major tournaments over the last two decades have ended in penalties.

IMO we have 3/4 potentially world class players.

Hart - If he can rediscover his form, and stop cocking up
Wilshere - If he can stay fit
Cole/Baines - Two of the best LB's going, shame we can only play one!
Rooney - As long as he doesn't spend too long sulking.

I agree, England will almost certainly qualify, but there is nothing to suggest they'll get any further than the usual 2nd Rd/QF.

The players are just as bad as usual, just they have a slightly better Manager than they usually have.

Still World Cup no hopers though, along with a dozen or so other teams on their level.

It matters John for form pointers. It tells us who are more consistent, more ruthless, more professional at getting the job done.

I just don't think this England squad cuts the mustard compared to others to leave these shores and come up short. Last night showed you have frailties in goal and in defence and you have less than a year to sort that and a month or so to sort it for crucial qualifiers. Fail to rectify them and you may not even be in Brazil.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It matters John for form pointers. It tells us who are more consistent, more ruthless, more professional at getting the job done.

I just don't think this England squad cuts the mustard compared to others to leave these shores and come up short. Last night showed you have frailties in goal and in defence and you have less than a year to sort that and a month or so to sort it for crucial qualifiers. Fail to rectify them and you may not even be in Brazil.

Defence is the weakest area of the team. We have not replaced terry/ferdinand.

Hopefully phil jones will have a great seson this year and really step up.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It matters John for form pointers. It tells us who are more consistent, more ruthless, more professional at getting the job done.

I just don't think this England squad cuts the mustard compared to others to leave these shores and come up short. Last night showed you have frailties in goal and in defence and you have less than a year to sort that and a month or so to sort it for crucial qualifiers. Fail to rectify them and you may not even be in Brazil.

Tell that to Italy. They may have scored twice against Germany early on in Euro 2012, but they couldn't get past the English shield wall for 2 hours of trying.

Oh, and England have one of the best defences in the European qualification stage. Only conceded 3, that's less than France, less than Portugal, less than Germany, and less than Italy.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It matters John for form pointers. It tells us who are more consistent, more ruthless, more professional at getting the job done.

I just don't think this England squad cuts the mustard compared to others to leave these shores and come up short. Last night showed you have frailties in goal and in defence and you have less than a year to sort that and a month or so to sort it for crucial qualifiers. Fail to rectify them and you may not even be in Brazil.

Tell that to Italy. They may have scored twice against Germany early on in Euro 2012, but they couldn't get past the English shield wall for 2 hours of trying.

Oh, and England have one of the best defences in the European qualification stage. Only conceded 3, that's less than France, less than Portugal, less than Germany, and less than Italy.

i didnt know that, good find.

I think Scotland's performance is being overestimated here. One game where you take two chances (or one chance and a keeper fluff) and we still go on to win means we have done alright in my book. I also think its naive to say Scotland were not more motivated to perform in the single game. Also, I am not saying Scotland couldnt be rusty due to stage of the season, but there was noticeable rustiness in some England players by their own standards, whereas that was not evident in the Scottish. 

I still see us as quarter finalists in a World Cup, and from there you dont have to be one of the best four teams in the world to just meet someone on your good day or on their off day.

Considering we have qualified with ease to some tournaments and still been the same, it doesnt concern me either. I think there is a bit of an evolution in tactics and thinking going on, as well as a turnover in playing staff, so its halted things a little. 
 
The disappointment at not getting beyond QF level is both born in a desire to succeed and a disappointment in defeat, which is of course extremely natural. From there on, a lot of it is driven by a media need to sell papers.

As for Scotland it can be seen as a miracle rescue mission if we can finish third in our group after the woeful start we made to the campaign under Levein.

A win away to Croatia and a fighting performance last night gives us hope after we were at our lowest ebb. Hopefully, we can get both Fletchers back fit and finish the campaign strongly and then we can look to the next campaign with a modicum of hope.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I think Scotland's performance is being overestimated here. One game where you take two chances (or one chance and a keeper fluff) and we still go on to win means we have done alright in my book. I also think its naive to say Scotland were not more motivated to perform in the single game. Also, I am not saying Scotland couldnt be rusty due to stage of the season, but there was noticeable rustiness in some England players by their own standards, whereas that was not evident in the Scottish. 

I still see us as quarter finalists in a World Cup, and from there you dont have to be one of the best four teams in the world to just meet someone on your good day or on their off day.

Considering we have qualified with ease to some tournaments and still been the same, it doesnt concern me either. I think there is a bit of an evolution in tactics and thinking going on, as well as a turnover in playing staff, so its halted things a little. 
 
The disappointment at not getting beyond QF level is both born in a desire to succeed and a disappointment in defeat, which is of course extremely natural. From there on, a lot of it is driven by a media need to sell papers.

Dolphin our entire back four could be deemed rusty hence why we faded in final 20 minutes. So if you feel Scotland's performance was overrated then surely England's can't have been much to boast about given the narrowness of the win, the inexperience of a third of our starting line up, our skipper and best player missing and rustiness of half our starting line up.

No bottle in major tournaments and a lack of team spirit.

super_realist wrote:It's clear England are a second string National side, never likely to challenge beyond QF and sitting alongside Sweden, Belgium, Croatia , Russia etc in International standing.
They aren't failures being knocked out in QF or 2nd Round, that's just their natural level.

 Couldn't agree more.

Precisely Nick,
It's natural to wish your home country well, but if countries like Sweden were talking up their chances of winning a World Cup or Euro we'd laugh at them, but they are of a similar standing.

Most English people are realistic though, England aren't good and they aren't bad, just an average team who get through a round or two, and get beaten by one of the dozen or so better teams.
No shame in that.

super_realist wrote:It's clear England are a second string National side, never likely to challenge beyond QF and sitting alongside Sweden, Belgium, Croatia , Russia etc in International standing.
They aren't failures being knocked out in QF or 2nd Round, that's just their natural level.

I'd say we're a notch above that but below the Brazils, Germanys, Spains, Italys etc of the world. Would put us on a level with Portugal, for example.

I think you are looking at a result and deciding it must have dictated the pattern of play. 

England came with more intention of using this friendly as part of their progression as a national side. Adapting to the new(ish) shape and getting some fitness in together for the new season.

Scotland came in far more desperate to get a result. Defended doggedly with every man in the side, took the one chance they got. 

England controlled the majority of the game. I also, like I said before, don't think Scotland get up for games and show enough quality against teams in, around and below them in the rankings. 

I have no problem with it being said England arent serious world cup contenders, we are not near the favourites. However, we are clearly a vastly superior team to Scotland. 

If we were that bad a side we wouldnt have won having gone down to a daft goal and then a very good one off finish. Yet, we still got up to beat you. Thats 3 goals against a side who were desperate to stop us scoring and were happy to defend any lead.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

super_realist wrote:It's clear England are a second string National side, never likely to challenge beyond QF and sitting alongside Sweden, Belgium, Croatia , Russia etc in International standing.
They aren't failures being knocked out in QF or 2nd Round, that's just their natural level.

I'd say we're a notch above that but below the Brazils, Germanys, Spains, Italys etc of the world.  Would put us on a level with Portugal, for example.

Almost, but not quite. Portugal routinely get further than England and tend to beat England and England are certainly no better in tournaments than Sweden, Croatia or Czech Republic, better than Poland, Switzerland and Greece though.

England's record in knockout tournament football over the past twenty years reads like this:

Won - 2
Lost - 2
Draw - 6

England are a hard team to beat but that is little consolation if they also have difficulty beating teams. And thats the problem.
As I've said before, draw specialists.