|
Post by ox4eva on Jun 21, 2014 10:51:48 GMT
I can't understand why people are surprised by England's performance and exit
The media hype them up, but the reality is England are a poor international team, we have been poor for well over 30 years!
Soon as we come against a half decent side we are punished, with the state of the EPL I can only see it getting worse for us...
|
|
|
Post by John Lennon on Jun 21, 2014 10:56:56 GMT
Because we care and desperately want England to do well, even though we know we aren't that good?
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jun 21, 2014 11:21:29 GMT
Not sure people are surprised? It's just the way it happened. Could easily of got a result against Italy and created more than enough chances against Uruguay who really should have been down to 10 men! Nobody thought we'd win it but to lose two games we could easily have won makes it more of a kick in the balls!
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Jun 21, 2014 12:17:43 GMT
Because we care and desperately want England to do well, even though we know we aren't that good? We all care and support England, what pisses me off is the lack of fight and passion I know we are poor technically but in years past at least we had fire in our belly!
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Jun 21, 2014 12:23:27 GMT
I don't think there's been much surprise really. The performances in the warm up matches showed a bit of promise (and some worrying tendencies) as did the Italy game. But promise is all it was - and the worrying tendencies turned into confirmed weaknesses. I hoped we'd get out of the group but obviously Costa Rica have completely upset the applecart - and it turn out that missing chances against decent teams in the World Cup whilst simultaneously having a tissue paper defence isn't a good thing. Who'd have thought it?! I think most are disappointed rather than surprised. Personally I'll be surprised now if we do anything other than lose against CR!
|
|
|
Post by oxrox on Jun 21, 2014 17:11:41 GMT
Disappointed rather than surprised is a good way to sum up England's performance.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jun 26, 2014 19:33:41 GMT
The problem is the quality of English players is no where near good enough. I feel sorry for Hodgson because he has no talented players to pick from. Instead he decided to go for youth rather than tried and failed experience, but he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Centre back - England always used to have talented centre backs whether it's Moore, Butcher, Adams, Ferdinand, Campbell - but Jagielka and Cahill are not international quality players. Wellbeck is awful, and as for Rooney. I really don't see why they keep persisting with this over-paid and over-rated prima-donna. Sure he scored a goal, but in three world cups that takes him level with Peter Crouch, Emile Heskey and Matthew Upson. That is simply not good enough.
If these four players were German - they wouldn't have even got on the plane, let alone made the first team.
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Jun 26, 2014 20:36:52 GMT
The media hype them up, but the reality is England are a poor international team, we have been poor for well over 30 years! False. England finished 3rd in Europe in 1996 (by default, beaten by the winners in the semi finals, and albeit spurred on by home crowds) and 4th in the world 6 years previously. These were 18 and 24 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Jun 26, 2014 20:47:21 GMT
England's "finishing position" based on who beat them at what round at International tournaments since 1990
Euro 2012: 6th World Cup 2010: 11th Euro 2008: 19th World Cup 2006: 8th Euro 2004: 6th World Cup 2002: 5th Euro 2000: 11th World Cup 1998: 16th Euro 1996: 3rd World Cup 1994: ~29th Euro 1992: 7th World Cup 1990: 4th
So usually between 5th and 15th should be our expectation, which is Last 16/Quarter Final territory
|
|
|
Post by unification on Jun 27, 2014 8:15:58 GMT
I think disappointment is the right word for it.
I’ve seen the usual media backlash calling the England team ‘pathetic’ and ‘flops’, but to be honest their campaign this time around despite exiting at the first stage has been a bit more fun than the horrid 2010 World Cup campaign. That turgid draw against Algeria, Rooney’s direct attack at the fans down the camera, a goalkeeping situation that beggared belief and being taught a justified footballing lesson by Germany made for unpleasant viewing. I couldn’t care less what England did after that – it was in no way enjoyable watching them in that World Cup.
A bit of perspective is needed. Under FIFA rankings, England weren’t expected to make it out of that group – Italy and Uruguay were. A more favourable group and a seeding would probably have helped them make the last 16 (they probably would have made it through Group C or Group H largely unharmed). Also, England actually didn’t play all that badly – a canny performance from Pirlo and a clinical couple of strikes from Suarez did them in. They went into the World Cup with pretty low expectations and obvious deficiencies and they were exposed. Sure, Hodgson could have taken Carrick, Cole or Terry to make things a bit different, but I don’t think he did anything completely leftfield or any tactical changes that any of us would not have done. They were beaten by better sides so nothing to get too annoyed about really, is it?
The usual post-mortem will be done, but until improvements are made to youth coaching and the FA stop bending over backwards to pander to the PL, the England national team will never win a major tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jun 27, 2014 9:44:36 GMT
England's "finishing position" based on who beat them at what round at International tournaments since 1990 Euro 2012: 6th World Cup 2010: 11th Euro 2008: 19th World Cup 2006: 8th Euro 2004: 6th World Cup 2002: 5th Euro 2000: 11th World Cup 1998: 16th Euro 1996: 3rd World Cup 1994: ~29th Euro 1992: 7th World Cup 1990: 4th So usually between 5th and 15th should be our expectation, which is Last 16/Quarter Final territory Whether we are poor or not depends on what your expectations of the National side are. Personally I think we have underperformed in every tournament since Euro 96. Compared to teams like Australia, USA, Russia etc we have been a very good side indeed but unlike these three football is our national sport and we really should doing a lot better than that. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be battling it out with Germany, Italy (forget this tournament), Spain (forget this tournament), Brazil and Argentina. The problem seems to have manifested itself ever since the advent of the Premier League, which I think has been the worst thing to happen to the English game in more ways than one. The FA seem to be only concerned with making money to pay off their debts on Wembley and making the Premier League 'the best in the world' (their words not mine), and seem to have totally neglected the National side. As I mentioned earlier, Euro 96 was a good preformance but most of those players (if not all) served their apprenticeships in what was the old First Division - not the Premier League. I don't know what the answer is, but the FA need to look into why we are being continually outdone by sides, who we really be competing with if not beating. Germany and Italy are certainly doing something right, as have the French, Spanish and Dutch. One World Cup final appearance in 1966 is pretty poor compared to Brazil (seven), Germany (seven) and Italy (six).
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Jun 27, 2014 15:20:20 GMT
England's "finishing position" based on who beat them at what round at International tournaments since 1990 Euro 2012: 6th World Cup 2010: 11th Euro 2008: 19th World Cup 2006: 8th Euro 2004: 6th World Cup 2002: 5th Euro 2000: 11th World Cup 1998: 16th Euro 1996: 3rd World Cup 1994: ~29th Euro 1992: 7th World Cup 1990: 4th So usually between 5th and 15th should be our expectation, which is Last 16/Quarter Final territory Whether we are poor or not depends on what your expectations of the National side are. Personally I think we have underperformed in every tournament since Euro 96. Compared to teams like Australia, USA, Russia etc we have been a very good side indeed but unlike these three football is our national sport and we really should doing a lot better than that. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be battling it out with Germany, Italy (forget this tournament), Spain (forget this tournament), Brazil and Argentina. The problem seems to have manifested itself ever since the advent of the Premier League, which I think has been the worst thing to happen to the English game in more ways than one. The FA seem to be only concerned with making money to pay off their debts on Wembley and making the Premier League 'the best in the world' (their words not mine), and seem to have totally neglected the National side. As I mentioned earlier, Euro 96 was a good preformance but most of those players (if not all) served their apprenticeships in what was the old First Division - not the Premier League. I don't know what the answer is, but the FA need to look into why we are being continually outdone by sides, who we really be competing with if not beating. Germany and Italy are certainly doing something right, as have the French, Spanish and Dutch. One World Cup final appearance in 1966 is pretty poor compared to Brazil (seven), Germany (seven) and Italy (six). You make two points here that seem to contradict each other. You state that it is since the Premier League that we have gone downhill, but then state that we have only ever reached one major final. I think the Premier League has had no effect, because the fact is that if you are good enough you will play. All that has changed is that England's best need to be better to play for the top teams than they used to be. I think it is more down to poor training and coaching of youth players whoh makes then underdeveloped technically when they reach 17/18 years old
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jun 27, 2014 15:54:06 GMT
Whether we are poor or not depends on what your expectations of the National side are. Personally I think we have underperformed in every tournament since Euro 96. Compared to teams like Australia, USA, Russia etc we have been a very good side indeed but unlike these three football is our national sport and we really should doing a lot better than that. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be battling it out with Germany, Italy (forget this tournament), Spain (forget this tournament), Brazil and Argentina. The problem seems to have manifested itself ever since the advent of the Premier League, which I think has been the worst thing to happen to the English game in more ways than one. The FA seem to be only concerned with making money to pay off their debts on Wembley and making the Premier League 'the best in the world' (their words not mine), and seem to have totally neglected the National side. As I mentioned earlier, Euro 96 was a good preformance but most of those players (if not all) served their apprenticeships in what was the old First Division - not the Premier League. I don't know what the answer is, but the FA need to look into why we are being continually outdone by sides, who we really be competing with if not beating. Germany and Italy are certainly doing something right, as have the French, Spanish and Dutch. One World Cup final appearance in 1966 is pretty poor compared to Brazil (seven), Germany (seven) and Italy (six). You make two points here that seem to contradict each other. You state that it is since the Premier League that we have gone downhill, but then state that we have only ever reached one major final. I think the Premier League has had no effect, because the fact is that if you are good enough you will play. All that has changed is that England's best need to be better to play for the top teams than they used to be. I think it is more down to poor training and coaching of youth players whoh makes then underdeveloped technically when they reach 17/18 years old A team of our stature should be at least reaching the semis of a major tournament - barring 1996, which I mentioned earlier - the last time that happened was 1990, which was before the Premier League was formed. Even in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups where we reached the quarter-finals, we were far from convincing. As for 2010, that was an absolute embarrasment, and 2014 - we were pretty much resigned to the fact that we were going home after the Costa Rica game. It's very sad that that is what the national side has become. Alf Ramsey and Bobby Moore would be turning in their graves.
|
|
|
Post by bicesteryellow on Jun 27, 2014 16:56:44 GMT
You make two points here that seem to contradict each other. You state that it is since the Premier League that we have gone downhill, but then state that we have only ever reached one major final. I think the Premier League has had no effect, because the fact is that if you are good enough you will play. All that has changed is that England's best need to be better to play for the top teams than they used to be. I think it is more down to poor training and coaching of youth players whoh makes then underdeveloped technically when they reach 17/18 years old A team of our stature should be at least reaching the semis of a major tournament - barring 1996, which I mentioned earlier - the last time that happened was 1990, which was before the Premier League was formed. Even in the 2002 and 2006 World Cups where we reached the quarter-finals, we were far from convincing. As for 2010, that was an absolute embarrasment, and 2014 - we were pretty much resigned to the fact that we were going home after the Costa Rica game. It's very sad that that is what the national side has become. Alf Ramsey and Bobby Moore would be turning in their graves. Alf Ramsey couldn't even get us qualified for the 1974 World Cup. What did England actually do between 1968 and 1988?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 27, 2014 18:24:28 GMT
A team of our stature should be at least reaching the semis of a major tournament What is 'our stature'? Based on your definition of 'our stature' (I'm sorry, the phrase makes me laugh), why should we expect to be in the best 4 teams in the world / europe? Alf Ramsey and Bobby Moore would be turning in their graves. Kinda strange use of the conditional future tense. I mean, they're both dead so that's not an obstacle. Perhaps you meant "Alf Ramsey and Bobby Moore would be turning in their graves if Wilshere continues to be a member of the England squad"? That would at least make sense.
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jun 27, 2014 18:54:06 GMT
England's "finishing position" based on who beat them at what round at International tournaments since 1990 Euro 2012: 6th World Cup 2010: 11th Euro 2008: 19th World Cup 2006: 8th Euro 2004: 6th World Cup 2002: 5th Euro 2000: 11th World Cup 1998: 16th Euro 1996: 3rd World Cup 1994: ~29th Euro 1992: 7th World Cup 1990: 4th So usually between 5th and 15th should be our expectation, which is Last 16/Quarter Final territory Is it just me or have we had some bad luck in World Cups? '86 The cheating Midget in the Q-F's (think we lost to eventual winners?) '90 unlucky penalty exit to the Germans( winners?) in semis '94 didn't qualify but were robbed against Holkand in qualifying as Koemans should have been red carded before scoring a free kick '98 lost to Argentina in pens ( with ten men and a good Sol Campbell goal disallowed) '02 Lost 2-1 to Brazil in Q-F's ( winners?) '06 again lost on pens with 10 men v Portugal this time '10 Lampards non-goal v Germany that would have put us level in the second round '14 Godin should have been sent off and we lost to a team that only had two shots on target from a guy that is now banned for four months
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 27, 2014 20:10:53 GMT
I won't mention that in '66 Jack Charlton (my memory may be a bit out here) saved on the line and wasn't sent off (it wasn't the custom in olden days when players were gentlemen) and Hurst's 'goal' in the final didn't cross the line.
It's not fair.
|
|
|
Post by bigfella72 on Jun 28, 2014 8:45:18 GMT
I won't mention that in '66 Jack Charlton (my memory may be a bit out here) saved on the line and wasn't sent off (it wasn't the custom in olden days when players were gentlemen) and Hurst's 'goal' in the final didn't cross the line. It's not fair. It was big Jack but some of the challenges that went in back then would be straight reds now and they didn't even get booked! I think we've paid for that goal with interest since '66!
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Jun 30, 2014 13:13:04 GMT
A team of our stature should be at least reaching the semis of a major tournament What is 'our stature'? Based on your definition of 'our stature' (I'm sorry, the phrase makes me laugh), why should we expect to be in the best 4 teams in the world / europe? Why shouldn't we be challenging? We're a similar size country to France, Spain, Italy and Germany in terms of population, football is our number 1 sport, and we are a 1st world nation. Add in the fact that the FA charge several billion pounds for Sky/BT Sport/ESPN to televise the matches, and it makes you wonder - what the hell are they doing with all that money?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jun 30, 2014 14:23:32 GMT
Because our attitude stinks, we don't know how to train players from young and the FA is organised on the lines of a public school old boys club. I'm not convinced that a majority of English players or supporters have much of a clue how to play football well, although the French public is clueless and that doesn't seem to trouble them.
Of the 4 you mentioned, Germany has been successful because they are organised and Italy because they had the best league and the best players for a long time, plus they didn't import as many players and imported better players than England. France has been pretty rubbish for most of their history and Spain have generally flattered to deceive.
It would be interesting to know what changed in France over the last 20 years to make them a force, which it seems they have become; similarly what changed in Spain to change them from talented no-hopers to world champions and then back.
I suppose my point is that we don't have a culture that fits with being good at football; stature-wise England is a dwarf.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Jun 30, 2014 18:56:55 GMT
Because our attitude stinks, we don't know how to train players from young and the FA is organised on the lines of a public school old boys club. I'm not convinced that a majority of English players or supporters have much of a clue how to play football well, although the French public is clueless and that doesn't seem to trouble them. Of the 4 you mentioned, Germany has been successful because they are organised and Italy because they had the best league and the best players for a long time, plus they didn't import as many players and imported better players than England. France has been pretty rubbish for most of their history and Spain have generally flattered to deceive. It would be interesting to know what changed in France over the last 20 years to make them a force, which it seems they have become; similarly what changed in Spain to change them from talented no-hopers to world champions and then back. I suppose my point is that we don't have a culture that fits with being good at football; stature-wise England is a dwarf. Actually, noone has been to more World Cup semi-finals then France ( 5 - 58, 82, 86, 98, 06) other than Brazil, Germany & Italy. They have of course had the tendency to self-combust when things aren't going great guns, but in terms of peak performances they've outperformed most of the rest of the world in World Cup history. Don't disagree with your other sentiments though.....
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Jul 1, 2014 7:34:05 GMT
Not a very nice way to start the day, tonyw. You know the way you can know something but your 'whole being' doesn't acknowledge it's enormity? It just hit me that there have been loads more world cups since I've been alive than there were before. Reading yr post I was thinking 82, 86... they're all so recent; France were shit forever..... Oh.
|
|