The English Myth

[John am Rhein]

To be fair John, the manager is a tool.

 

No more of a tool than the next football manager.

 

His record - both with England and in his previous jobs - is excellent.

[_00_deathscar]

 

His record - both with England and in his previous jobs - is excellent.

 

Is it?

 

"Statistically" speaking, it is fine.

 

If the Internationals were a league format, England would be up there in 3rd spot or thereabouts.

 

But it's not, it's in Cup formats - so two quarters just isn't good enough. It's the LEAST one expects.

 

It's the equivalent of saying Houllier's last year in charge was fine because he got us the minimum expected.

[aka Dus]

No more of a tool than the next football manager.

 

His record - both with England and in his previous jobs - is excellent.

 

England are in it to win and he hasn't got them anywhere near a winning position.

 

So the stats can say what they want - he has never got close to the best out of the players as might be expected (over-rated as many are) and that may not be a 'fact' but it's self evident when they play.

[John am Rhein]

If Benitez/Hiddink or someone with half a clue managed these players, England would be realistic challengers for the World Cup instead of this unfounded over-hyped belief that sweeps the nation every four years.

 

England ARE realistic challengers for the World Cup (much as I hope they get nowhere near it).

 

As I said, these players are what's being over-hyped. It's only Gerrard and Rooney who are up to the standard that's attributed to them - yet the others - even the journeymen like Neville and Hargreaves - are up to the job to the same extent that players from the other contenders are.

 

England almost certainly have the best manager they are going to get - and a far better one than in almost every previous tournament.

[Lee W]

England ARE realistic challengers for the World Cup

 

Not on this evidence they're not.

 

If it wasn't for an unbelieveable save by Robinson, the crossbar and Steven Gerrard, England would've been comprehensibly beaten by a team whose tactics resembled that of pub teams up and down the country on Sundays.

[John am Rhein]

England are in it to win and he hasn't got them anywhere near a winning position.

 

So the stats can say what they want - he has never got close to the best out of the players as might be expected (over-rated as many are) and that may not be a 'fact' but it's self evident when they play.

 

What do you mean by a 'winning position'?

 

He's got them top of the group and the real business starts now - what more do people want?

 

You're not measuring Eriksson by the same standards as other international managers. Klinsmann, Scolari, Van Basten, etc. etc. could all be judged as 'not getting the best out of all their players'. It's a lot easier said than done.

 

Not on this evidence they're not.

 

If it wasn't for an unbelieveable save by Robinson, the crossbar and Steven Gerrard, England would've been comprehensibly beaten by a team whose tactics resembled that of pub teams up and down the country on Sundays.

 

Here's one of the primary fallacies - that 'pub team' i.e. long ball tactics are somehow inferior and easier to cope with.

 

England ARE contenders for the world cup - not least on the evidence that they've topped their first round group. Their good record in qualifying and good record over the years - especially under their current manager - is further evidence of that.

[Ostrich Man]

The only World Class English players are Gerrard, Carra (in central defence), Ashley Cole and probably Jo Cole in the not too distant future.

 

 

 

fecking great stopper....but world class......jesus h.

 

gerrard and rooney and at a push ashley cole.

[_00_deathscar]

Not Terry?

 

Ashley Cole is debatable.

 

Gerrard, Rooney, Terry I'd say.

[Stevie H]

What do you mean by a 'winning position'?

 

He's got them top of the group and the real business starts now - what more do people want?

 

You're not measuring Eriksson by the same standards as other international managers. Klinsmann, Scolari, Van Basten, etc. etc. could all be judged as 'not getting the best out of all their players'. It's a lot easier said than done.

 

it's because the 'real business' doesn't usually consist of one f***ed striker who was never fit anyway, one star player frantically and frustratingly trying to regain match fitness, one pointless waste of space captain, one greedy b*****d centre midfielder who plays only for himself and the headlines and one best midfielder in the world seemingly considered a square peg in a team of round holes.

 

pretty much all the other contenders for the world cup have shown evidence so far of playing as teams. england continues to look like a collection of overpaid, arrogant individuals.

[Gilps]

Not on this evidence they're not.

 

If it wasn't for an unbelieveable save by Robinson, the crossbar and Steven Gerrard, England would've been comprehensibly beaten by a team whose tactics resembled that of pub teams up and down the country on Sundays.

 

They've topped their group, are unbeaten and have a relatively kind route to the quarter final and a winnable looking game when they get there. All despite not playing well or looking convincing.

 

But then the only side that has looked convincing in all the times they've played is Argentina. That hardly makes them the only contenders.

 

Don't think England will win, but tey certainly are still amongst the teams who can.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Gilps

[Stevie H]

 

fecking great stopper....but world class......jesus h.

 

gerrard and rooney and at a push ashley cole.

 

alan hansen was spot on recently about carragher. half-a-yard of pace away from being a world class centre-back.

[Lee W]

Here's one of the primary fallacies - that 'pub team' i.e. long ball tactics are somehow inferior and easier to cope with.

 

England ARE contenders for the world cup - not least on the evidence that they've topped their first round group. Their good record in qualifying and good record over the years - especially under their current manager - is further evidence of that.

 

There is no evidence in this tournament AND in previous tournaments that this manager has the tactical nous to challenge for a trophy at this level. I never said the long-ball game was inferior, but quite simply if England played anyone of Brazil, Argentina, Holland, Germany, Spain and maybe Italy or the Czech's on their showing so far they would get ripped to pieces.

 

We'll see, I guess.....

[John am Rhein]

it's because the 'real business' doesn't usually consist of one f***ed striker who was never fit anyway, one star player frantically and frustratingly trying to regain match fitness, one pointless waste of space captain, one greedy b*****d centre midfielder who plays only for himself and the headlines and one best midfielder in the world seemingly considered a square peg in a team of round holes.

 

pretty much all the other contenders for the world cup have shown evidence so far of playing as teams. england continues to look like a collection of overpaid, arrogant individuals.

 

It's not about showing evidence, though.

 

Eriksson's squad selection was flawed for sure and that certainly seems to have come home to roost now Owen's (apparently) out of the tournament - hardly an accident that couldn't have been seen coming.

 

Yet, I still think England are potentially a very strong side with Rooney alone up front and 5 in midfield. Not favourites, of course, but still contenders - as they always have been.

[Gunga Din]

rooney, gerrard and probably terry. that's it.

 

i'd agree with that

[Guest Cally77]

After watching the game again, I have to say that England were superb in the first half and completely destroyed Sweden. The passing and movement was excellent, and Joe Cole was just superb. Second half, for whatever reasons, maybe a lack of fitness or Sweden getting their tails up, we faded. But that can be worked on.

 

The Owen injury could be a blessing in disguise; we look more of a flowing side without him. Plus everyone bangs on about Owens great tournament record and how we can't win without him, but his last two major comps have heralded three goals.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Cally77

[Stevie H]

It's not about showing evidence, though.

 

Eriksson's squad selection was flawed for sure and that certainly seems to have come home to roost now Owen's (apparently) out of the tournament - hardly an accident that couldn't have been seen coming.

 

Yet, I still think England are potentially a very strong side with Rooney alone up front and 5 in midfield. Not favourites, of course, but still contenders - as they always have been.

 

i take your point john but i think you're looking at it too pragmatically. yes, england are in the knockout stages which by default makes them a contender. but they show no signs of playing as a team nor any sign of where they're going to improve sufficiently to beat the other contenders when necessary.

[John am Rhein]

There is no evidence in this tournament AND in previous tournaments that this manager has the tactical nous to challenge for a trophy at this level. I never said the long-ball game was inferior, but quite simply if England played anyone of Brazil, Argentina, Holland, Germany, Spain and maybe Italy or the Czech's on their showing so far they would get ripped to pieces.

 

We'll see, I guess.....

 

I guarantee they won't.

 

They may well lose - but that's because those teams are very good. England will give those teams quite a few problems as well and the game could well go either way in each case. Against Italy or the Czechs I'd make England slight favourites. Argentina and Spain will probably self-destruct if they play England as well.

[John am Rhein]

Guus Hiddink or big Phil Scholari would of made England picking the right men for the job and making them play as an efficient team, not the 'collection of individuals' we have seen play in Germany.

 

They'd have been up against the same fundemental difficulties as Eriksson and while they might have done slightly better or slightly worse, I don't think they'd have been different by any significant margin.

 

But these (including Eriksson) are proven good managers. McLaren (and the other joke candidates like Allardyce) are not.

[Des]

Not really. England came flying out of the blocks in that tournament and then faded.

 

Oops. Sorry Gilps, I see what you mean now. 82 was in Spain, of course.

[TFU]

They'd have been up against the same fundemental difficulties as Eriksson and while they might have done slightly better or slightly worse, I don't think they'd have been different by any significant margin.

 

But these (including Eriksson) are proven good managers. McLaren (and the other joke candidates like Allardyce) are not.

 

apologies for being obtuse, but what would you say are the fundamental difficulties..... injuries aside?

[Ripley]

Not really. England came flying out of the blocks in that tournament and then faded.

You mean after 25 seconds?

[John am Rhein]

apologies for being obtuse, but what would you say are the fundamental difficulties..... injuries aside?

 

As has been mentioned, the relative inability to keep possession under pressure. This is due to the inability of the players not some bizarrely perceived mental deficiency of successive managers.

 

To that I would also add (these days) the lack of any decent full backs or goalkeepers (used to be positions of strength for England) the lack of a proper 'holding' player. Until Joe Cole emerged as a decent international class player, the lack of ANYONE who can play on the left (except Gerrard and then that's at the expense of his contribution in other areas).

 

It's no coincidence that the top English clubs use non-English players to the exent that they do.

[Gilps]

Not really. England came flying out of the blocks in that tournament and then faded.

 

Not England in 82. Italy in 82. As an example of another team who went onto win it after starting poorly.

[Stevie H]

As has been mentioned, the relative inability to keep possession under pressure. This is due to the inability of the players not some bizarrely perceived mental deficiency of successive managers.

 

To that I would also add (these days) the lack of any decent full backs or goalkeepers (used to be positions of strength for England) the lack of a proper 'holding' player. Until Joe Cole emerged as a decent international class player, the lack of ANYONE who can play on the left (except Gerrard and then that's at the expense of his contribution in other areas).

 

It's no coincidence that the top English clubs use non-English players to the exent that they do.

 

english club sides in the premiership use pace down the flanks to stretch teams and get in behind them. i can't understand why the national team doesn't try similar.

[Figaro]

english club sides in the premiership use pace down the flanks to stretch teams and get in behind them. i can't understand why the national team doesn't try similar.

 

because SGE=