The Illusion that is English football

[Billy Dean]

We also had big doses of luck in both tournaments. In Italia 90 we were poor in the group stages, had a last minute goal against Belgium and scraped through against Cameroon. It was only really against Germany that we put in a really top performance.

In the Euros, we played incredibly well against Holland but were poor in the other two group games, and won a penalty shootout against Spain before playing well against Germany. Given how often we have lost penalty shootouts in other tournaments I would say we would massively reassess all of those had we been more successful in the lottery of a shootout.

We're one of those teams that isn't ever good enough to march through tournaments, so if we have luck on our side then we progress, if we don't then we don't. The problem is that the last few tournaments we've just been utterly rubbish, despite qualifying in grand style for each of them.

I wouldn't put it just down to luck though it obviously plays a role. But in any case I disagree that "playing the English way" rather than trying something a bit more sophisticated will bring us success just on the basis that Greece fluked their way to success once. Germany and Spain are recent examples of countries that have found success by revising the way they play from youth levels up. Germany used to also base their game on strong defence and strong mentality but they changed things and ended up winning the world cup. Likewise Spain used to have a more direct style and changed the way they play which brought them unprecedented success.

 

[Minimeister]

I still don't think we've ever had a manager who picks players who can potentially have a great tournament or even the best players for that position. Joe Hart for example. The blokes made more mistakes in the last 6 months than Big Nev made in his career, but because he plays for one of the money clubs he's picked. Same with the Henderson and Drinkwater situation. I can't believe for someone without a football brain, Barkley was used so much before the tournament, there's absolutely no plan to anything they do.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I wouldn't put it just down to luck though it obviously plays a role. But in any case I disagree that "playing the English way" rather than trying something a bit more sophisticated will bring us success just on the basis that Greece fluked their way to success once. Germany and Spain are recent examples of countries that have found success by revising the way they play from youth levels up. Germany used to also base their game on strong defence and strong mentality but they changed things and ended up winning the world cup. Likewise Spain used to have a more direct style and changed the way they play which brought them unprecedented success.

I was just saying that with our players we are pretty average, and have been for a while now. When we've exceeded expectations (as in 90 and 96) then luck probably played a role in that. I mean how many of the players in our squad are being fought over by the leading European clubs?

I mean people mocked the price PSG paid for David Luiz, yet he is nonetheless an experienced international that has won some of the biggest competitions in club football (and reached a semi-final of a World Cup). We don't seem to bat an eyelid at John Stones being valued in the same price range, despite him having little experience at the sharp end of competitions and failing to get into one of the worst England sides in living memory. It's madness really isn't it?

 

[dublinbluenose]

Yet

Not sure that's right. The likes of Capello and Eriksson had both achieved amazing things in the game. Blaming the coach seems a little too simplistic to me.

Yet neither had any success with England (Capello may well have gone on to do so).

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yet

Yet neither had any success with England (Capello may well have gone on to do so).

Just saying that there's probably a lot more to the failure of the national team than the coaching. I mean del Bosque has been with Spain for the last 8 years during which they've conquered all, and now seem to be mortal again. The coach hasn't changed in that time...

 

[Billy Dean]

I was just saying that with our players we are pretty average, and have been for a while now. When we've exceeded expectations (as in 90 and 96) then luck probably played a role in that. I mean how many of the players in our squad are being fought over by the leading European clubs?

I mean people mocked the price PSG paid for David Luiz, yet he is nonetheless an experienced international that has won some of the biggest competitions in club football (and reached a semi-final of a World Cup). We don't seem to bat an eyelid at John Stones being valued in the same price range, despite him having little experience at the sharp end of competitions and failing to get into one of the worst England sides in living memory. It's madness really isn't it?

It is really, our players are vastly overrated at the moment. And its no coincidence the better our players and coaches have been the better we've done in tournaments. You're right, probably the difference between say our 90/96 and 04/06 teams was mainly luck (also management). All of those teams had top players in most positions and players playing abroad.

 

[Khalekan]

We also had big doses of luck in both tournaments. In Italia 90 we were poor in the group stages, had a last minute goal against Belgium and scraped through against Cameroon. It was only really against Germany that we put in a really top performance.

In the Euros, we played incredibly well against Holland but were poor in the other two group games, and won a penalty shootout against Spain before playing well against Germany. Given how often we have lost penalty shootouts in other tournaments I would say we would massively reassess all of those had we been more successful in the lottery of a shootout.

And IIRC Spain were the victim of several poor refereeing decisions when they had men clean in on goal.

Here is one man's take on Euro 96.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/jul/04/1

 

[Tubey]

Difference between English players and the actual Premier League.

Rarely is an Englishman one of the best 10 players in the league. That's the problem.

In terms of quality and certainly intensity, the Premier League is right up there. It just has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the national team, when players like Toure, Silva, Aguero, Hazard, Drogba, Suarez etc. etc. are not English.

 

[degsy]

That football has never worked for England though mate. The strongest we've been since 66 was in 90 and 96 where we played 3-5-2, had technically good players and managers who knew what they were doing.

Of all the teams that play, or in our case used to play the 'English Way' we mostly have the best players. The fact that all the other home countries plus Iceland were good enough to qualify shows there's some mileage in it

We go back to what we know - or did know

Given we only have 'X' amount of skill compared to the more technical continental teams...we put in that old time effort, get a coach and squad that buys in to the ethos, we mightn't win, but we won't roll over and anybody that beats us will have to be at the top of their game.

Can't be any worse

 

[Caolam]

English league is the most entertaining but it lacks quality. Leicester, with an old fashioned style of play, winning the league shows the other teams could not cope, they didn't have the quality to beat a system.
However the international team still preform below even the level of quality, it is a case of the whole being less than the sum of the parts.
N. Ireland, ROI and Wales generally do the opposite despite their players playing in the same leagues.
It is a problem would seem to relate to the English. I would suggest it is the pressure that is heaped upon the players because the sporting public believe the team is much better than it is and to some degree the players believing the hype. Their is something, again this is my suggestion based on personal observation, in the English makeup which make them believe they are something other than what they actually are. The Premier League was the best league in the world, when it clearly wasn't it became the most attractive league. It couldn't be just a very good league it had to be the best or the most.
The same seems to afflict the national team, at the moment they are a disgrace, the worst of all time etc while they actually are a good side who had a bad championship.
I had them down to get through to the last 8 which is roughly were they are in the rankings, they had a very bad night and went home one round early.
The team that went were probably a bit below the standard which normally represent England, the manager was definitely below par for England but the public refused to recognise this. The pundits were talking about how well they would do against France because they play well against a team who comes at them and creates space for them to play. Two weeks before that they were worried because the defence was suspect, they seemed to forget the defence was made up of a GK who was prone to make mistakes, two fullback of limited European or international experience and two average centre halves. Their seems to be a belief that somehow pulling on the England shirt will transform a player into a world beater.
How has this over optimism come about, I could see a country like Spain believing a team could come good, they have won things, their players know how to win tournaments. But England, they haven't won anything for 50 years, their record in tournaments is poor. I don't have any theory on why this England believe they can win tournaments despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The important thing, for England, is how do they lower the expectation to a realistic level to allow the players to express themselves and to feel good about their performances when they don't win tournaments. To then take this forward and improve rather be in a constant state of rebuilding.
The new manager has to manage expectations, he has to find a way to create space for players to grow and not be castigated. I don't know how he will do this, I have no doubt England will qualify for the next World Cup Finals and the hype will start again and pressure will be heaped upon the team and they will fail again.

 

[ToffeeMark]

Jack Wilshire

 

[bflefc]

I'd just like it for England to approach tournaments (or any game, but especially in tournaments) with a dose of realism and humility. Instead of thinking of a strategy to endure along a 6-7 game tournament path to glory, just be honest and admit we're an average-at-best chance and recognise we just need to go out and try to win the next game. Then the next one - and see where that takes us.

Stop trying to pace ourselves and play the long strategy. We have no divine right to anything, be it winning anything or even any right to assume we'll make the quarters or semis etc

Just go balls out to win the next game, giving it full pelt to overcome whichever team we're facing next. If we go out, we shouldn't be shocked or humiliated because, as I say, we need to be pragmatic and recognise we're just one of the pack and no more than that.

It's worked absolutely fine for Wales and Iceland, and we could learn a huge amount from them.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Whilst you are right in saying that an England representative XI were beaten by Iceland, you don't want to be confusing English football with the England international team.

The best players at the clubs in the EPL are rarely, if ever, English these days.

Most teams in the EPL have more foreigners,.....and for the purposes of this discussion that includes our Scottish, We,she and Irish friends.......than actual Englishmen on the team.

Years ago, lads like @Andy C, @Steve Wigan and @summerisle among others might recall they used to have "Inter League" games.

In these games a team comprising players whom played in England but could have been from anywhere played games against the Scottish League, the Irish League and occasionally the Italian League.

I would venture to suggest if an EPL Select XI was fielded today there would be precious few Englishmen on the team.

Yes they did, and you're right. And the Scottish League, Irish League and Welsh League would be even worse now.

Mind you, there were so few foriegners in those days that tplaying for 'The Football League' was one step below getting an international cap. Most who played for 'The Football League' were from the old First Division.

 

[b-rad]

Only 3 english teams since the turn of the millennium have won the champions league - and they are still gifted with 4 champions league spots - which is the most.

As opposed to 2 Spanish teams, 2 Italian teams, 1 German team and 1 Portuguese team?

The PL has had more different Champions League winners since the turn of the century than any other league. Sure, Spanish clubs have had the most success, but it's only the 2 clubs.

 

[efcforever]

I know he upset a lot of people but I genuinely thought we were a good side under Glenn Hoddle. Unlucky to go out of the World Cup in 98, really thought we could have done something that year. I doubt he's the man to take over now though. He's been out of the game too long.