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.

The next one is in England as well. England certainly will have a shot at that one. We also have bags of squad strength(compared to football and almost all the other rugby union countries out there bar NZ) and just gone to 3rd in the world.

That's it Oakey, There is a lack of acceptance that England are average and an insistence from certain people that they are "up there". There is nothing to suggest they are anything better than average.

By all means support your team, but don't pretend you're a contender when it's abundantly clear you aren't.

You have to believe you are a contender when you are a supporter.

I support palace and England. ANd i believe there is a possibility england could win the world cup and i believe there is a possibility that place will stay in the prem.

If you want to know what i actually think- well its obvious. palace will go down and england will certainly not win let alone get out of the quarters(we may not even get there full stop!!)

But , Yes I can have a bit of hope.. Thats what being a fan is all about.

No you don't. That's absurd if there expectations to which you expect them to contend aren't remotely attainable.

Do you think the supporters of San Marino or Andorra think they can contend on even the smallest level of winning more than 2 games in a generation?

Hope on that basis is a wasted emotion. That's more desperation and madness than genuine hope.

I get that you genuinely don't have a chance of winning the World Cup, and more and more fans are coming to that understanding, sadly, until the media etc stop thinking the way they do and the FA stop acting like old farts from the R&A it's unlikely to change.

I wouldn't begrudge an England without c***s like Gerrard, Cole and Terry success, but i've got more chance of being struck by lightening whilst going to pick up the lottery jackpot.

No hope isn't a wasted emotion SR.

Its something you need to understand dude.. Its a good thing.

I wouldn't describe it as hope, well I would, but it would be pre-fixed with "forlorn". Hope is something I would describe where there was a reasonable and realistic chance of it happening, i.e you've got a reason to think it might come off. I haven't heard one genuine reason as to how or why England could win a tournament.

You might "hope" it happens in your lifetime, and it might, but not without catastrophic changes to the way in which they do things.
Someone like Dave Brailsford in charge might be what England need because the current set up clearly doesn't work.

England winning a tournament in the near future is as likely as Shane Lowry winning Mr Universe. So you couldn't genuinely be surprised if next year they get knocked out as usual in the 2nd Round or QF (if they get there of course

Ok lets look at this realistically

lowery has no intention of slimming down at the moment and would never ever want to bulk up to body builder level as he has the life of riley as a golf pro, earning bundles and playing great courses.. the chances of him being mr universe is 1 in 1000000000000000000.


england winning the WC in our lifetime.

1. Its the FA's goal
2. This country loves football
3. we have money
4. everyone is talking about how to improve our situation
5. we have the resources and the available population

I would deffo stick my 10'er on england over lowry

Oakey,
1. It's at least the goal of 16 other countries, 6-7 of which are within a genuine shout of doing it and KNOW how to do it or have come close to doing it.
2. Every country loves football
3. Lot's of countries have money.
4. Lot's of other countries are miles ahead of England.
5. Lots of countries have resources equal or better than England.
None of the above points give England an advantage over any of the other dozen or so teams more likely to win.

The question is, how can England get to a level where they are better than others?

It's all very well having a goal, but it's just rhetoric because they aren't doing much about it.

Lowry, like England, could succeed with a great deal of work and a massive change of attitude.
Don't get me wrong, England have potential, but they are wasting it/not realising it.

Lowery doesn't want to succeed in body sculpting, and isn't in the running..

england are in the running- its what they do.

you need to sort your comparisons out lad!

Its like saying England have as much chance at winning a world cup as I do becoming a bestselling novelist or you getting a girlfriend!

England? Course they can do it.

They are only in the running due to the fact they are present. Currently, they just make up the numbers. They are no more in the running than a pacemaker in a 10,000m race.
They are no more in the running than half a dozen or so other second tier countries either.

I would have preferred the FA to come out with something more constructive, humble and attainable like:

"Our aim is to improve the international standing of the team in order that by 2022 we might be considered serious contenders"

To put a date on something is as likely to end in disaster as counting up your scorecard on the 18th tee and saying you need a birdie to break par. Inevitably you'll come up short.

Its a ridiculous statement and reminded me of scotland's plan for rugby union. To win the RWC 2015.

 

They don't need to state anything performance related , no organization does- They should have a plan of a structure change. and state what this plan is!!

The issue with England is still at the very basic level of training with the youngest kids.

The FA are bringing in 5 a side for U7s and U8s, it was announced last season, still most leagues are 7 a side and are waiting until it's compulsory, the pitches remain the same size as do the goals.
I've taken my son to play at Man Utd, Man City and Everton academies over the summer months, the level of training is 20 years behind what they teach in Germany. Line the kids up in rows, waiting 10 minutes to have a shot and get back in the queue. How many kids are here? Well stick them all in two teams and let it degenerate into a cross between rugby and pinball as the biggest and strongest lad emerges with the ball and smashes it.
If the biggest clubs in the land are still teaching kids in this manner then the gap in technical ability of the future generations will get wider and wider.

That's a very ridiculous statement Oakey too. Although at least in Rugby Scotland would have fewer better countries in the tournament than England would have in Football, so may be not that absurd. In fact perhaps Scotland winning the egg chucking world cup is as futile as England winning the football one. Both are incredibly unlikely scenarios.

Instead of making silly predictions of winning the World Cup in 2022 they should be asking "Why are we so sh*te?"

Trust me it's much more absurd..

Really? They'd only have England, France, Ireland, Wales, Argentina, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to beat.

England's footballers would more teams that are better than that in Football.

It's all about the time frame. Scotland made that comment last year. There can't even use new players to win in 2015.. and not one of there current players wouldgget into any top 6 side. At least England's statement is 9 years away. Still an absurd statement but not as.

super_realist wrote:Really? They'd  only have England, France, Ireland, Wales, Argentina, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to beat.

England's footballers would more teams that are better than that in Football.

Luck plays a part in football, so surprises do and will happen (Greece at Euro 2004).

In Rugby Union though, luck is far less prominent. Hence why Scotland and Ireland have never beaten New Zealand at the game.

There is no chance Scotland will win in 2015, but there is some chance England will win in 2014.

I'd say the chances for Scotland winning in 2015 were only slightly less than the infinitesimally small chances of England winning in 2014. If you said there is some chance England might win in 2022 I'd agree, but there really is nothing more than an extremely remote chance England will win next year, more than none granted, but almost nil.

super_realist wrote:I'd say the chances for Scotland winning in 2015 were only slightly less than the infinitesimally small chances of England winning in 2014. If you said there is some chance England might win in 2022 I'd agree, but there really is nothing more than an extremely remote chance England will win next year, more than none granted, but almost nil.

Around 8 starting English players (Hart, Cole, Cahill, Wilshere, Lampard/Carrick/Cleverley, Welbeck, Rooney, Walcott) play for the very top clubs in England, who in turn are the very top clubs in Europe.

When you have talent like that to call on, you know you've got a chance, because those players play on the biggest stage there is week in, week out.

Which is actually sadly half the problem Duty. They end up playing almost every game for their club- including going far into Europe. Then are pretty strained at the end of the season if they are even fit enough to play. This wouldn't be a problem if we had more depth that actually played at PL level but we have the problem that our next best players bench warm at the top clubs- therefore are never match fit or cannot be picked by an england manager. Then our next best are playing in the championship because foreign players are cheaper to fill up the rest of the prem- therefore not getting the high quality match ups week in week out!

Duty, that's all very well, and is the well worn hackneyed reason England fail so dismally. They play the game on paper.

It doesn't follow that simply because players are decent at club level that it will transfer to the international game. Look at Messi for proof.

England have always selected names first and tried to fit them in a formation, than try to get the formation and tactics for international football right and then put the right players in it. For all the names you mention bar the ghastly Cole (who hasn't done it for a while, there really isn't any who distinguish themselves regularly.

England have the talent to be better than they are,, no doubt about that, probably not to win a tournament, but there is no reason why they shouldn't have made a few more semi's in the last 40 years. Trouble for England is that there are great many countries with players who do perform on that stage.

Messi has started to turn it on at international level! blame diego for argentinas failings- no one else!

Giving guys like Lampard and Gerrard over 100 caps is ironic when neither have had more than half a dozen truly good games for England, compare that to their club games. Flogging a dead horse at times rather than incur the wrath of ditching both.

Isn't that the problem? Too much reliance on reputation. That's kind of what I like about Rickie Lambert, small name, not a big time charlie, but effective in the position he's played in. Leighton Baines seems to be likely to be decent too at International level. So maybe they are starting to put "round pegs in round holes"

super_realist wrote:Duty, that's all very well, and is the well worn hackneyed reason England fail so dismally. They play the game on paper.

It doesn't follow that simply because players are decent at club level that it will transfer to the international game. Look at Messi for proof.

England have always selected names first and tried to fit them in a formation, than try to get the formation and tactics for international football right and then put the right players in it.  For all  the names you mention bar the ghastly Cole (who hasn't done it for a while, there really isn't any who distinguish themselves regularly.

England have the talent to be better than they are,, no doubt about that,  probably not to win a tournament, but there is no reason why they shouldn't have made a few more semi's in the last 40 years. Trouble for England is that there are great many countries with players who do perform on that stage.

Exactly what I've been saying. England underachieve. It's time to start achieving. Semi-Finals should be the aim next year*, then England can give themselves a pat on the back, and build towards Euro 2016 - a tournament England are much more likely to win because it's being held in France which has less heat, and there will probably be a lot more English support like in 2004/2006.

* Which is very, very possible. England might only have to beat one big name to get that far. They might even get a lucky draw, like Germany in 2002 who didn't have to beat a single big name in getting to the final.

Duty, recognising underachievement isn't the same as addressing it. You don't deserve to get to a semi just because you think you are capable of it. There is probably 16-18 teams which given the right circumstances and luck could reach a semi (South Korea remember?)

I also think it's harder in the Euro's because they are more likely to meet a good team earlier even if they win their group. Heat shouldn't be a concern or an excuse either, even though France can be roasting in the summer just as it can all over continent. No one can use lack of climatisation as an excuse for the Euro's.

2022 in the winter is actually a good shout!

I have no idea why we are against it!

Our players will be fresher- so squad depth will not be as important- as more top names will be available.

Qatar isn't exactly cold in the winter.

England will never gain an advantage in any weather over any other team, and every major league will restructure for it.

The weather wasn't the point.

Duty stated France as being an option for England doing well because "it has less heat".

Not sure he's ever been but France can be extremely hot.

super_realist wrote:Duty stated France as being an option for England doing well because "it has less heat".

Not sure he's ever been but France can be extremely hot.

It can be (and I haven't been), but I would gather it's cooler than Southern Brazil?

Duty, you are aware that the 2014 World Cup is taking place in the Southern Hemisphere's winter aren't you?

Parts of the country will be pretty cool (or should I say cooler), but those near the equator where there is virtually year round constant temperature will be pretty warm.

France on the other hand in Summer is apart from on the North Coast extremely hot.

Part of france is like the SE of england. some of it is as hot as north spain/north italy and some of it is in between!!

its that simple really

Exactly, Climate, Summer in Qatar apart should never be an excuse for World Cups, especially for "athletes". It's the same for all of them.

Altitude on the other hand is what players should be concerned about.

super_realist wrote:Duty, you are aware that the 2014 World Cup is taking place in the Southern Hemisphere's winter aren't you?

Parts of the country will be pretty cool (or should I say cooler), but those near the equator where there is virtually year round constant temperature will be pretty warm.

France on the other hand in Summer is apart from on the North Coast extremely hot.

I am aware of that, yes. But it can still reach temperatures of around 30 Celsius, whereas in France it is usually in the low to mid 20s.

Of course, but these are conditioned athletes and most matches will be played late afternoon or mid evening, not in the heat of the midday sun.

Wasn't the Wimbledon final played in 40c+ according to the courtside thermometer?
25-30 isn't that debilitating for 90 mins.

I remember playing tennis in the midday sun in the caribbean.

never ever again!

Hard to play tennis with a big reefer in your mouth Oakey.

I got heat stroke of it dude.. No reefers though.

I got out of the car in the states in the desert. 45C. unbelievable. A summer World Cup in Qatar where it is often 50C (those temps are in the shade too) would cause a death I'm pretty sure.

Certainly could yes.

It has to be played in the winter. I am struggling to work out where these huge air con units have gone that qatar and fifa initially said they had planned to build in time so all the fans and players would be adequately protected!

I am sure that 10m dollars in sepps back pocket has eased the pain of finding out that that was an impossible task!

Were'nt we supposed to do well in Germany 2006 as the weather was similar and we didn't have travel far?

Can you imagine the suffering of the bald headed 20 stone Englishman out in Doha in 50c+
let alone a bunch of jessie cossetted players?

Summer there would be a joke. Worst World Cup since America 94.

I don't understand why they don't play at night? Might make it better for tv times as well, I assume it is still too hot.

No direct sunlight though Crimey. That would probably make enough difference to make it safe!

Have England got any fair headed gingers? Vultures will be circling.

Crimey wrote:I don't understand why they don't play at night? Might make it better for tv times as well, I assume it is still too hot.

Bloody roasting in the evening. My old boss works in Doha. Still 40c+ in the evening in summer.

super_realist wrote:

Crimey wrote:I don't understand why they don't play at night? Might make it better for tv times as well, I assume it is still too hot.

Bloody roasting in the evening. My old boss works in Doha. Still 40c+ in the evening in summer.

Yeah, that's what I feared.

Ridiculous decision to award them the competition without any real guarantee of it being held in the summer.

Look at this another way.

The reason why many people (of all nations) on here don't see England as potential contenders is because they fail to beat REAL quality teams. I'd love to know when England have beaten quality teams at the World Cup or Euros and/or how many they have been beaten by the REAL contenders such as Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Argentina and Brazil?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Look at this another way.

The reason why many people (of all nations) on here don't see England as potential contenders is because they fail to beat REAL quality teams. I'd love to know when England have beaten quality teams at the World Cup or Euros and/or how many they have been beaten by the REAL contenders such as Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Argentina and Brazil?

Let's be honest England only lose to the majority of these teams on penalties or ot is a very close game.

In WC 02 we lost to one of the best brazil teams in decades in a very close game 2-1 and it is always against the very best teams.

WC 90- penalties to Germany
Euro 96- penalties to Germany
WC 98- penalties to Argentina
Euro 04- penalties to portugal
WC 06- penalties to Portugal
Euro 12- penalties to italy

So we are drawing with the best teams in the world in the international competitions but lose on penalties which is a coin toss. The fact we can draw with the best teams and only lose to the lottery known as a penalty shoot out and the fact we have beaten the top teams in friendlies highlights to me the reason why England could do very well at a future tournament.