Tuesday qualifiers

First topic message reminder :

Macedonia vs Scotland (7:30)
Wales vs Serbia (7:45)
Ukraine vs England (7:45)
Austria vs ROI (7:45)

As a welsh man i'm not holding out for too much against Serbia. We're without joniesta and williams so it means there's even more pressure on Ramsey to pull something out the bag again. Hopefully Coleman's team selection and tactics improve and we're more positive against Serbia. If we'd gone for it we would've won in Macedonia. Fingers crossed bale get's 15 mins at least.

Tough games for England and ROI, I expect England to get a point at least or maybe sneak a win.

So, in short, they have lost the vast majority of their matches against the big guns? That is why people do not see them as contenders. And penalty shoot-outs are defeats by the way as the winners proceed and losers go home.

CaledonianCraig wrote:So, in short, they have lost the vast majority of their matches against the big guns? That is why people do not see them as contenders. And penalty shoot-outs are defeats by the way as the winners proceed and losers go home.

Only someone with an agenda would come to that conclusion.

Are you not bored yet talking about another country's footballing success yet? you been banging on about it for days on this thread alone and probably years on other forums etc. You don't want to talk about Scotland?

Success? What success?

Your case for England being contenders is fanciful bluster that you have world class players because they play in the Champions League and that you will be there so that makes anything possible with little else to back this up.

The case based against England being seen by contenders put by Englishmen as well I may add are they are not good enough (not my words), that history shows you have a rank record getting beyond the QF's, that history shows you have a feeble record beating the big guns at major tournaments for a country you feel is a contender, that has a manager with a record in the job worse results-wise than previous England managers who also won nothing, that your pre-competition form isn't going to strike fear into anyone (only beating Moldova and San Marino thus far) and that most recent form in majors (last Euros) show your current squad not good enough to get beyong the QF's there so what exactly has changed since then apart from your world ranking has deteriorated.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Success? What success?

Your case for England being contenders is fanciful bluster that you have world class players because they play in the Champions League and that you will be there so that makes anything possible with little else to back this up.

The case based against England being seen by contenders put by Englishmen as well I may add are they are not good enough (not my words), that history shows you have a rank record getting beyond the QF's, that history shows you have a feeble record beating the big guns at major tournaments for a country you feel is a contender, that has a manager with a record in the job worse results-wise than previous England managers who also won nothing, that your pre-competition form isn't going to strike fear into anyone (only beating Moldova and San Marino thus far) and that most recent form in majors (last Euros) show your current squad not good enough to get beyong the QF's there so what exactly has changed since then apart from your world ranking has deteriorated.

I don't ever remember saying my reasons.

My reasons are the above that you highlighted and in addition our friendly wins against the big teams and also the fact we only lose on penalties to the big teams which means after 120 minutes we were equal to that team and only lost on the lottery known as a penalty shoot out.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Success? What success?

Your case for England being contenders is fanciful bluster that you have world class players because they play in the Champions League and that you will be there so that makes anything possible with little else to back this up.

The case based against England being seen by contenders put by Englishmen as well I may add are they are not good enough (not my words), that history shows you have a rank record getting beyond the QF's, that history shows you have a feeble record beating the big guns at major tournaments for a country you feel is a contender, that has a manager with a record in the job worse results-wise than previous England managers who also won nothing, that your pre-competition form isn't going to strike fear into anyone (only beating Moldova and San Marino thus far) and that most recent form in majors (last Euros) show your current squad not good enough to get beyong the QF's there so what exactly has changed since then apart from your world ranking has deteriorated.

World Cup winners!!!!!

Please reply why you feel so emotionally attached and why you comment so much about another country's football team?

World Cup Winners?

Does that mean Uruguay are twice as good? Sure that because they won it 83 years ago will help them immensely next year.

Hero wrote:World Cup Winners?

Does that mean Uruguay are twice as good? Sure that because they won it 83 years ago will help them immensely next year.

He asked what success England have had and I replied WC winners which is correct.

Dunno why you guys are still bothering with this.

Arguing with the resident patriots is as fruitful as KPF on the cricket section

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Hero wrote:World Cup Winners?

Does that mean Uruguay are twice as good? Sure that because they won it 83 years ago will help them immensely next year.

He asked what success England have had and I replied WC winners which is correct.

Several generations ago we had success, and since then and due to 'inventing the game' we think we've a god given right to be thought of as one of the big boys. I'd suggest the analogy that England are the Liverpool FC of the international game but England aren't even close to that. Newcastle a closer match, won something 50 years ago, loads of noisy fans, think they're bigger than they are, occasional signs of hope but eventual a huge disappointment and nobody outside of their immediate vicinity gives a rats about them.

Hero wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Hero wrote:World Cup Winners?

Does that mean Uruguay are twice as good? Sure that because they won it 83 years ago will help them immensely next year.

He asked what success England have had and I replied WC winners which is correct.

Several generations ago we had success, and since then and due to 'inventing the game' we think we've a god given right to be thought of as one of the big boys. I'd suggest the analogy that England are the Liverpool FC of the international game but England aren't even close to that. Newcastle a closer match, won something 50 years ago, loads of noisy fans, think they're bigger than they are, occasional signs of hope but eventual a huge disappointment and nobody outside of their immediate vicinity gives a rats about them.

I never said anything about England winning WC 2014 because we won WC 66. He asked what success england have had and so I replied WC winners because we did.

There's only so far a lack of quality and poor tactics can take you. England are experts at that and you don't make Semi's playing like that.
They need to be winning matches, not boring out a draw and hoping for penalties.
THey haven't had a performance which truly looked class since they beat Germany 5-1 and that was AGES ago.
England look scared, intimidated and generally hang on rather than take the game to teams. What have they got to lose by changing their approach because you can only fail and they're guaranteed to do that if they carry on their normal way.
Hodgson could be the man to do it, but they've had 3 terrible managers before so will take a while.

Hodgson is certainly not the man to change a no lose mentality- he is defining it even more!(1 loss in 20 but 8 draws!!)

Redknapp was the man for us.. A manager in the same ilk as the players.. He would have bonded with the lads and got them up for england matches.. Tactics is only a very small part of football if truth be told(well once you get past the level that all top managers understand anyway)

The england team needs to not play scared- they need to be more creative and more up for it!

just look at the way some of our players played yesterday, they looked a different proposition..

Agreed Mystr

Why do England fans sing '2 world wars and 1 world cup'?

Sure they won a world (as they constantly like to tell themselves and the rest of the UK) but 2 worlds wars?

well if you haven't gathered it would be a wind up chant when playing the germans..

the final was v germany- the world wars were v germany.

It is only in reference to the germans. Not just a chant the fans would sing against anyone else. Just football banter- don't get your knickers in a twist over it

Well there's a non-negligeable amount of my life I've just spent reading these comments which I'm not getting back... For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

The argument "England are unbeaten and have scored more than/conceded less than..." is silly, because anybody with a small amount of common sense can see that
a) England's group is stupidly easy
b) if you take out San Marino and Moldova England's record is decidedly dodgy anyway.

The truth is IF England were going to be genuine World Cup contenders then this is the kind of group they should be eating up easily. That they are making hard work of it suggests to me that they are not.

However you cannot have it both ways either. You can't say in one breath "England are an average side" and then in the next "we really should be beating the likes of Ukraine and Poland comfortably" because those two statements contradict each other. Either you say England are an average side in which case yes a draw in Ukraine is a decent result. Or you think England are a good side in which case they should be aiming higher.

Of course form in qualification need not determine how a team goes in the tournament; France struggled to get out of their qualifying group for the 2000 euro where their toughest opposition was Ukraine (albeit the Ukraine of Rebrov and Shevschenko, a much tougher opposition than the current side) and Iceland. But beyond the results, it has been the performances of this England side which should be the most cause for concern.

Personally I think with the way England are currently playing they are an average side. They will probably get to the WC (although they might need to scrap a bit in the crucial 2 games coming up) and once there I expect them to make the 2nd round, and possibly the quarter finals if the draw falls their way.

Can they win? well they have a chance, but it is a small one. They either need the draw to open up for them (not impossible, but happens rarely) or they will have to beat at least 3 sides who are better than them. Put like that it sounds possible, but it is IMO extremely unlikely because of how they play when they face such teams: in effect it is "defend and hope" which is significantly different from "defend and hit them on the break". We have to accept that when playing the likes of Spain, Italy etc. England will be outplayed, not in the style of Chelsea when they play Barcelona (Chelsea played to their plan) but in the style of Chelsea's final against Bayern (Chelsea had no plan other than to cling on, nicked a goal from a set piece), or England against Italy at the Euro. In such circumstances, England could win 1 if they get lucky (as Chelsea demonstrated against Bayern), even 2 (prob including 1 on penalties) if they get very lucky, but 3? the odds are very much against it.

Should England be aiming higher? That is up for debate. I actually quite like the FA's aim to win the WC in 2022 (although would rather the aim be to get to the final, it is my view that what happens in the final is much of a muchness), but I fear it is maybe a bit too soon if structural changes are necessary. But it does give a clear medium to long term aim around which a strategy can be based. Scotland's plan to win the 2015 RWC is I'm afraid laughable, because there cannot be a plan based on 2 years.

One final thing to bear in mind: going back at least as far as 86, all world cup winning sides have had great players. I don't think there's anybody english currently playing who could be described as great...

Well said Mike.

I'm more of the opinion that its sad that England can no longer be favoured to put sides like Ukraine and Montenegro away (decent sides sure, but hardly great sides) and that in itself should be a wake up call to all involved.

The style of England also concerns me. We might not have great players, but we have good ones, particularly in CM. Should a midfield 3 of Lampard, Gerrard and Wilshere be overrun by a Ukraine duo?

Players under performing I can accept, but all of them? I have to look at the manager for that. Is Roy fit for purpose? His style is acceptable at sides like West Brom and Fulham were often survival is the main aim, but can he aim higher?

Mike Selig wrote:
One final thing to bear in mind: going back at least as far as 86, all world cup winning sides have had great players. I don't think there's anybody english currently playing who could be described as great...

Certainly no player who performs well enough in International football.
If England won anything, as unlikely as it may seem it would probably be as a result of teams knocking one another out, and a favourable draw with a bit of luck than a true galvanised team effort like Greece did in the Euro's.

Some people here get over-excited/carried away about the EPL hype. One thing though, if England have world class players then why are none sought after by Real Madrid/Barcelona/Juventus/Bayern Munich/AC or Inter Milan? Bale was deemed to be in that category so why not the same chasing of these supposed world class England players?

I wonder about the manager thing. I don't think Roy is the right man exactly for the reasons you said. However genuinely good managers like Sven and Capello didn't get the best out of Gerrard/Lampard (and there were times in the 2006ish period where both of those were IMO genuinely world class) which suggests that the problem may lie deeper.

In that context the stated aim of winning in 2022 is interesting, because done the right way it might work: what type of players do England need to produce to win a WC? how do you produce such players? how do you then develop these players in the right environment so that they can perform at their best in 2022? is the Premier League in its current state a help or a hindrance to that kind of environment?

These are tough questions which will need to be answered. It is the kind of examination which Sir Clive Woodward did so successfully in enabling England to win the RWC in 2003, and sports like cycling have gone through in recent years. I still suspect that 2022 may come too soon, but if the FA are genuine in their ambition then this is the type of things they will have to look at.

Well mike mentions there are no great players.

that philosophy is actually the problem..

you see players like gerrard and rooney have actually performed and won there clubs the toughest prize in football(the CL).

we allways talk about them as the great players(which yes they actually are)

But when the pressure is on them at england level and not quite the same other quality around them they cant produce..

forget about quality players. Think QUALITY TEAM!!

not one team has won a Cup that isn't a quality team. Loads and loads of sides have won nothing with quality players!

Think team not individuals!

2022 is way too soon to truly turn it around..

A 20 year plan is needed- we need to get to the 8 year olds today and then in 20 years time when these players are 28 on average and experienced at the highest level will you win something

mystiroakey wrote:Well mike mentions there are no great players.

that philosophy is actually the problem..

you see players like gerrard and rooney have actually performed and won there clubs the toughest prize in football(the CL).

we allways talk about them as the great players(which yes they actually are)

But when the pressure is on them at england level and not quite the same other quality around them they cant produce..

forget about quality players. Think QUALITY TEAM!!

not one team has won a Cup that isn't a quality team. Loads and loads of sides have won nothing with quality players!

Think team not individuals!

Yes I can agree with that. It seems to suggest that it is the wrong mentality in players. No doubting that your Lampards and Gerrards are star players at their clubs but they become shrinking violets for England or is it their egos get in the way of playing for the team? As for manager there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Harry Redknapp should have got the job not Hodgeson.

Redknapp would've been an awful England manager. At least Hodgson tries youth, Arry would pick his favourites every time.

I'd rather England go young and modern

Mike Selig wrote:I wonder about the manager thing. I don't think Roy is the right man exactly for the reasons you said. However genuinely good managers like Sven and Capello didn't get the best out of Gerrard/Lampard (and there were times in the 2006ish period where both of those were IMO genuinely world class) which suggests that the problem may lie deeper.

In that context the stated aim of winning in 2022 is interesting, because done the right way it might work: what type of players do England need to produce to win a WC? how do you produce such players? how do you then develop these players in the right environment so that they can perform at their best in 2022? is the Premier League in its current state a help or a hindrance to that kind of environment?

These are tough questions which will need to be answered. It is the kind of examination which Sir Clive Woodward did so successfully in enabling England to win the RWC in 2003, and sports like cycling have gone through in recent years. I still suspect that 2022 may come too soon, but if the FA are genuine in their ambition then this is the type of things they will have to look at.

Was Sven ever a good manager? He only really did well at Lazio who were minted at the time.

As for Lampard and Gerrard, instead of slapping them on the back and congratulating themselves for over 100 caps you have to ask how on earth they were allowed to get so many when both have so repeatedly failed to perform in an England shirt.

The problem with englands football is that we are stuck in the middle of two styles.

If we just said sod it lets play rush football all the time at least we would have an identity and you could possibly see us beating teams- think back to venables team.. The last truly decent side that played football we could be proud of and football that could actually beat teams.


Ok yes its well and good introducing this passing game but being so rigid positionally

When players constantly run back after losing the ball it kills our creativity. Not enough players are forward enough when it matters and we end up maybe averaging an extra two passes per phase but we never get forward in numbers enough.

You can't teach old dogs new tricks. So either pick players that can play one way and think about that teams identity or play players like gerrard and lampard at there best- which is further forward!

GSC wrote:Redknapp would've been an awful England manager. At least Hodgson tries youth, Arry would pick his favourites every time.

I'd rather England go young and modern

England needs motivation and the ability to get the creativity out of them.. Roy is playing rigid and scared football.

Redknapp for me all day long. He is one of them. You wouldn't pick a bank manager to manage a construction site would you!

Roy would be the perfect fit for a scandinavian, dutch or german team. He may be from croydon but he certainly has none of it left in him!

mystiroakey wrote:

GSC wrote:Redknapp would've been an awful England manager. At least Hodgson tries youth, Arry would pick his favourites every time.

I'd rather England go young and modern

England needs motivation and the ability to get the creativity out of them.. Roy is playing rigid and scared football.

Redknapp for me all day long. He is one of them. You wouldn't pick a bank manager to manage a construction site would you!

Roy would be the perfect fit for a scandinavian, dutch or german team. He may be from croydon but he certainly has none of it left in him!

Roy is perhaps too intelligent for English footballers hence the success he's had abroad. Harry "Triffic" Redknapp might indeed be a better fit for the 11 solitary brain cells which go out on the pitch.

Harry would be a fine choice if England had the players capable of winning the WC.

But we don't, we need a rebuild, in personnel and style. I'd prefer someone younger, modern and brave.

I always wanted someone really young and given a 20 year contract with zero pressure to qualify!!

but then they pick a manager that has had 20 jobs that all lasted 2 years each!!!

Harry Redknapp in no shape or form would have been the correct choice for England manager.

Like GSC says, if we were to replace Roy, I'd want us to go for a young attacking manager.

Tough and pointless job to take on. Never going to win anything and you get nothing but grief by doing it.
Can't think who would possibly be in the running as Hodgson will inevitably leave after failure in 2016.

Well you would think redknapp wouldn't you!

But maybe hoddle again would be a great shout!

super_realist wrote:Tough and pointless job to take on. Never going to win anything and you get nothing but grief by doing it.
Can't think who would possibly be in the running as Hodgson will inevitably leave after failure in 2016.

The rumours are either Gary Neville or Gareth Southgate.  

Hoddle, as good as he was as a footballer struggles with players who weren't as good as him, which means all of them at present. He's also a bit of a nutcase.

Don't get the love for Harry Rednapp TBH...

Villas-Boas?

mystiroakey wrote:Well you would think redknapp wouldn't you!

But maybe hoddle again would be a great shout!

You and I have a better chance than Redknapp Myst and Hoddle's a bit too batty to be considered.

Mike Selig wrote:Don't get the love for Harry Rednapp TBH...

Me neither. Vastly overrated.

So who else is there then.

I hope we don't go foreign again.

I'd rather we went foreign.

Olly wrote:I'd rather we went foreign.

Yeah, because that works really well with Postman Pat and Sven Emporers New Clothes Eriksson.

The FA pay way too much, so you'd only get a mercenary, not someone who would actually be good or who had an incentive to be good.

Why on earth not someone foreign? Picking someone English for the sake of having someone English is not smart...

I don't like foreign coaches in football or rugby. The game is all about passion as a team.

In Cricket you can get away with it(due to half the team being foreign and it being an individual styled sport within a team sport!)

Comes across as very xenophobic that Myst.

Bet you don't mind the foreigners in the Palace team?

FreekShow wrote:Comes across as very xenophobic that Myst.

Bet you don't mind the foreigners in the Palace team?

don't be so stupid.

1. the FA made a statement they would only pick an english manager!

2. Its a national sport. (only english qualifying players are allowed to play!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

3. palace has nothing to do with it, but i love the fact we bought approx 65% british in this transfer

Well to be honest I'd want the best man for the job, and there aren't really any English names that stand out...

Deal with having an average manager like we have to deal with having an average rb!

its that simple i suppose.

mystiroakey wrote:I don't like foreign coaches in football or rugby. The game is all about passion as a team.

In Cricket you can get away with it(due to half the team being foreign and it being an individual styled sport within a team sport!)

Well that's nonsense for a start.

Passion as a team sure; the manager doesn't need passion though, much to the contrary excessive passion can cloud your judgement and the manager's job is to observe, analyse and evaluate. "Passionate" wouldn't be the first adjective you'd think of to describe sir Clive would it? And he is quite possibly the best manager an England team has ever had across all sports.

Of all the criticisms leveled at Steve McClaren, the one that because he sheltered under an umbrella he wasn't passionate about the team was always the most ludicrous.

Personally I believe "competent" to be a better attribute than "passionate"...

Id rather have modern than English. We need somebody up to date with the current game.

"Well that's nonsense for a start"

it was a tongue in cheek joke and you know it!

"!Personally I believe "competent" to be a better attribute than "passionate"..."

its not about an either or. thats ridiculas