Just how good were “The Golden Generation”

[flibbyflob]

Had they had the same draw this squad has enjoyed, they would have got to the semi-final as well. From 1998 to 2010, they lost to Argentina, Brazil, Portugal and Germany, all of whom you could make a strong case for being better than the Croatia side we lost to yesterday. It's a cup competition, so luck plays a huge part.

Had they had the same team spirit as the current side they may have beaten any one of the sides that knocked them out. Trouble is as they have all admitted they let club rivalries ruin team spirit. Bunch of wasters.

 

[Rook]

Gerrard was 100 caps of gash tbh. Not just saying that, his schoolyard game worked in the prem but nowhere near the intelligence or discipline to run an international midfield.

Xabi Alonso was so freaking good that they were able to get away with Gerrard going wherever the hell he wanted on the pitch. On England Gerrard just got in the way of everyone.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Had the England team given Belgium at least a good game yesterday then we could say they've jumped up to that level, but they didn't look any more like winning than they did in the group game. I'm not convinced their level has really changed that much. We've always been great at qualifying because we usually have to play teams at the level of Sweden and Colombia, but the team has failed for some time in defeating the best teams. That hasn't changed.

 

[goodisonopheliac]

On paper, great. Together, not so much. They were a squad of individuals. At least this team are fairly young and have time to improve.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

It was all about them as individuals, imagine what could have been if they had actually played and bonded as a team.

Also, the media building them up to the point of ridiculousness every time they played didn't help.

 

[Rook]

Had the England team given Belgium at least a good game yesterday then we could say they've jumped up to that level, but they didn't look any more like winning than they did in the group game. I'm not convinced their level has really changed that much. We've always been great at qualifying because we usually have to play teams at the level of Sweden and Colombia, but the team has failed for some time in defeating the best teams. That hasn't changed.

Unless the absurd number of free kicks they knocked in wasn't a total fluke, they really didn't improve very much on the pitch. However, they were at least admittedly likable and a side to root for so i guess you could say they improved off the pitch.

 

[Billy Dean]

Had the England team given Belgium at least a good game yesterday then we could say they've jumped up to that level, but they didn't look any more like winning than they did in the group game. I'm not convinced their level has really changed that much. We've always been great at qualifying because we usually have to play teams at the level of Sweden and Colombia, but the team has failed for some time in defeating the best teams. That hasn't changed.

In 2014 we finished bottom of our group with 1 point, our worst ever WC performance. In 2016 we lost to Iceland and couldn't beat very poor Russia and Slovakia teams. To say we haven't improved on that is laughable. No one is saying we've become a top side.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In 2014 we finished bottom of our group with 1 point, our worst ever WC performance. In 2016 we lost to Iceland and couldn't beat very poor Russia and Slovakia teams. To say we haven't improved on that is laughable. No one is saying we've become a top side.

Ok, we've gone from a team who doesn't get out of their group to one who gets out of their group but goes no further, as has been the case for decades? And before anyone says about them being a young team, France had a younger side out.

 

[Walken]

Xabi Alonso was so freaking good that they were able to get away with Gerrard going wherever the hell he wanted on the pitch. On England Gerrard just got in the way of everyone.

not being able to adapt from a flat four midfield and get the best out of scholes is utterly criminal when you think about, even show some bottle and stick gerrard and lampard on the bench if you have to

 

[Billy Dean]

Ok, we've gone from a team who doesn't get out of their group to one who gets out of their group but goes no further, as has been the case for decades? And before anyone says about them being a young team, France had a younger side out.

Er...we got out of the group and got to the semi finals. I don't see how you can deny that's an improvement???

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Er...we got out of the group and got to the semi finals. I don't see how you can deny that's an improvement???

Wales got to the semis of the last Euros, therefore they must be equally awesome, right? Oh, 'cept they failed to qualify for the World Cup.

 

[Billy Dean]

Wales got to the semis of the last Euros, therefore they must be equally awesome, right? Oh, 'cept they failed to qualify for the World Cup.

I'm not saying they're awesome. I'm saying they're an improvement on the last few tournaments.

 

[dholliday]

not being able to adapt from a flat four midfield and get the best out of scholes is utterly criminal when you think about, even show some bottle and stick gerrard and lampard on the bench if you have to

There's a good argument that the cult of LFC ruined England's golden generation. The hype surrounding Gerrard was massive and made him undroppable from a media perspective, but even most non-blues felt he was the weak link in that midfield.

Everyone agrees Lampard was a consistent world class performer, & the specific qualities of Scholes & Beckham (if played in the right position) have always been clear. Gerrard...apart from bright moments here & there, was always the wrong fit in that midfield as he didn't bring a consistent game with him. Having a water-carrier midfielder who just did his job without grand designs on Hollywood moments would've brought essential balance and England might've actually won a tournament during those Sven years.

 

[Walken]

There's a good argument that the cult of LFC ruined England's golden generation. The hype surrounding Gerrard was massive and made him undroppable from a media perspective, but even most non-blues felt he was the weak link in that midfield.

Everyone agrees Lampard was a consistent world class performer, & the specific qualities of Scholes & Beckham (if played in the right position) have always been clear. Gerrard...apart from bright moments here & there, was always the wrong fit in that midfield as he didn't bring a consistent game with him. Having a water-carrier midfielder who just did his job without grand designs on Hollywood moments would've brought essential balance and England might've actually won a tournament during those Sven years.

Hargreaves did a good job of it in 2006 and they came close, but still sticking far too rigidly too a flat four four two, you need that controller in the center at tournament footy, and scholes was a world class one in the second half of his career, incredible at times the press seemed to put him behind lampard and gerrard

 

[dholliday]

Hargreaves did a good job of it in 2006 and they came close, but still sticking far too rigidly too a flat four four two, you need that controller in the center at tournament footy, and scholes was a world class one in the second half of his career, incredible at times the press seemed to put him behind lampard and gerrard

aye, I've probably mentioned it in the forum before like: I was at the stadium for our 4-1 thrashing of England in WC 2010, pretty much the highest row so saw the formations of both teams clearly. England always had a rigid flat 4-4 (and then either 2 or 1-1). Germany had 3-5-2, then 4-4-2, then 5-3-2, then 3-4-3, 4-2-4, 5-4-1...just kept changing shape depending on the rhythm of the game. Was fascinating and a real football lesson.

Also surprising that a seasoned continental coach like Capello still stuck to this rigidness.