*Official* English Football Season 2015-16

[Ikki]

You also have to remember we're talking about knock-out tournaments where if you win the whole thing you've played, only, 6-7 games; and they're every 4 years. That's a small sample and pretty open to little things (like luck) deciding the winners and losers.

 

[wpdavid]

I think it's partly due to some sort of valuation of remuneration and exposure vs. achievement at international level.

Whilst most of us don't care too much about how much they're paid, it can be off-putting when they don't do what we've been led to believe they should be achieving, and when one or two of them act like prize knobs with a massive sense of entitlement. Now I know that isn't entirely logical, especially if you consider that someone like Ashley Cole comes out worst in the knob stakes but actually was one of the better performers. But these things tend to cloud people's judgement. Add in the massive exposure since the arrival of the EPL, and I think expectations have been magnified with a result that the sense of disappointment has been more pronounced.

Just guessing really. I'm actually more sympathetic towards the current England side than around 10 years ago.

 

[Cabinet96]

They all achieved buckets at club level. Which is 90% of football for them really. In the end, while I don't remember the period that well to really no some of the finer details, I'd suggest it was probably just a case of being a bit unlucky from 02-06, and some incompetent management after that.

 

[wpdavid]

There was a bit of bad luck with injuries to key players
2002 - Gerrard missed the whole thing, and Beckham wasn't 100% recovered from his pre-tournament injury
2004 - Rooney going off injured against Portugal
2006 - IIRC Rooney wasn't 100% recovered from his pre-tournament injury
Beyond that, Brazil's winner in 2002 was a fluke, and we had a possibly decent goal disallowed which would have put us through against Portugal in 2004.

But Sven didn't always help, not least with failing to grab the nettle in terms of a more balanced midfield.

 

[Ikki]

They all achieved buckets at club level. Which is 90% of football for them really. In the end, while I don't remember the period that well to really no some of the finer details, I'd suggest it was probably just a case of being a bit unlucky from 02-06, and some incompetent management after that.

Also, the English players that did well for their clubs weren't peripheral players either; they were the main stars for their clubs more or less - so, it's not like they got carried to titles. And for me: Champions League > World Cup in terms of quality of competition anyway.

 

[cpr]

Wow, last 5 games for Utd quite straightforward, if we can be close at that point....

 

[cpr]

Re the golden generation.

As the stats shows, defensively we've been really solid in these sorts of games (bar Germany 2010), and thats because in Campbell/Terry/Ferdinand, we managed to find a defensive set up that was solid and complimented each other. Throw in Cole and Neville either side and it was a defence most countries would be envious of.

The fact is we didn't score goals, and thats down to a number of things
1. Our great midfielders of that point were all of an attacking mindset - Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes - There was no way we could shoe horn them all into a midfield, certainly not staying with 2 up top as England seemed to be stuck on. It meant on too many occasions players suffered from their normal game - Gerrard being the defensive one (he can do it well, but its hard for him and goes against all his instincts, something difficult to control when passionate), Scholes laughably on the left.... We lost shape and strength in the midfield because of it. I'd say its no coincidence that when we did use a defensive minded midfielder, they shone (Butt in 2002, Hargreaves in 2006), because it worked better than forcing square pegs in round holes
2. Metatarsals and other woes. Beckham, Rooney... Owen blowing a knee in South Africa....
3. Our attackers just didn't fire when we needed - a chunk of that due to the injuries above, but Rooneys lack of form at big tournaments is well known, and even Emile Heskey will admit he wasn't the man to do it alone....


Twas a great era of England players, but it just wasn't to be......

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The only real argument of any substance that says England have a hope in hell of winning the Euro's is the "Greece did it in 2004" that gets trolled out every tournament. The difference is that they could defend.

 

[Uppercut]

1. Our great midfielders of that point were all of an attacking mindset - Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes - There was no way we could shoe horn them all into a midfield, certainly not staying with 2 up top as England seemed to be stuck on. It meant on too many occasions players suffered from their normal game - Gerrard being the defensive one (he can do it well, but its hard for him and goes against all his instincts, something difficult to control when passionate), Scholes laughably on the left.... We lost shape and strength in the midfield because of it. I'd say its no coincidence that when we did use a defensive minded midfielder, they shone (Butt in 2002, Hargreaves in 2006), because it worked better than forcing square pegs in round holes

I think this is the big one. Add Carrick vs. Ecuador in 2006 to that list.

English football had a real individualist streak to it at that time. There were times when star players needed to be left out for inferior players, for the good of the team, but it didn't happen. In 2006 they could have copied Chelsea's incredibly successful system with Carrick for Makelele and Gerrard for Essien. But that would mean leaving out Owen or Rooney, and ideally Beckham too, which would just be unthinkable. In 2014 they would have been much better if they had just installed most of the Liverpool team and filled in the gaps. But picking as many players as possible from one non-London club is political suicide, despite making so much footballing sense.

Which is probably the ultimate source of the problem: being England manager is more about keeping the media and masses of bandwagon supporters on-side than it is about picking the best team.

Also worth noting that Spain had this exact problem with Raul right before they turned good. Del Bosque left him out and had to push through an enormous ****storm to keep his job, but it worked.

 

[Cabinet96]

Didn't Del Bosque gets lots of criticism initially for playing Busquets instead of the likes of Cesc as well?

 

[Cabinet96]

Arsenal play Chelsea, United and Tottenham all a few days after Champions League group games. Was about to make a huge moan then remembered it's exactly the same for them. #Derp.

 

[wpdavid]

I think this is the big one. Add Carrick vs. Ecuador in 2006 to that list.

English football had a real individualist streak to it at that time. There were times when star players needed to be left out for inferior players, for the good of the team, but it didn't happen. In 2006 they could have copied Chelsea's incredibly successful system with Carrick for Makelele and Gerrard for Essien. But that would mean leaving out Owen or Rooney, and ideally Beckham too, which would just be unthinkable. In 2014 they would have been much better if they had just installed most of the Liverpool team and filled in the gaps. But picking as many players as possible from one non-London club is political suicide, despite making so much footballing sense.

Which is probably the ultimate source of the problem: being England manager is more about keeping the media and masses of bandwagon supporters on-side than it is about picking the best team.

Also worth noting that Spain had this exact problem with Raul right before they turned good. Del Bosque left him out and had to push through an enormous ****storm to keep his job, but it worked.

Goes back to 2004 of course, when Scholes ended up playing on the left to accommodate Lampard alongside Gerrard. The result? Our entire midfield went missing in the key games against France and Portugal.
'Individualistic streak' is an interesting way of putting it. Piss poor management is another. I don't think it was so much the London press as SVE being too close to some of the big name players and therefore unwilling to leave one of them out to achieve a better structure. Good comparison with Del Bosque and Raul. A similar point could be made about Ramsey and Greaves in 1966.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think it was so much the London press as SVE being too close to some of the big name players and therefore unwilling to leave one of them out to achieve a better structure.

Well maybe, but it's kind of harsh to criticise Sven for making the exact same mistake that 95+% of fans/media would have made. You'd have needed a manager with a huge contrarian streak to go against the entire country on something like that.

Also doesn't explain the fact that Hodgson's still making the same type of mistake. And you end up with an undroppable Rooney playing LM and getting absolutely tortured by Candreva against Italy.

 

[King Pietersen]

We could have been so good in 2004. Amazing team on paper if you had them now. Rooney was at his very best in terms of dynamism and flair, and if they'd line up as follows:

----------------------------James-------------------------
---Neville--------Terry---------Campbell---A Cole---
---------------------------Gerrard--------------------------
-------------------Lampard----------------------------------
--Beckham---------------------Scholes-----------------
------------------------------------------------Rooney--------
------------------Owen--------------------------------------

They could have won the thing. Don't have a proper left-winger? Then don't use one. Rooney was young enough and fit enough to do the running to cover if needed, or if he couldn't get back, then the deep midfielder (Gerrard) could have covered, or Scholes could have got back and covered. The first XI there is as strong a group of players as we had for ages, but they never lived up to their immense potential. The lack of fluidity in the tactics, and the reliance on a stiff 4-4-2 really hurt England as instead of making the most of impact players like Scholes and Lampard, we either played them out of position in rigid tactic, or replaced them with dire players like Vassell and Heskey. If we had that squad in the modern era of tactics, with a capable manager, we could actually win something. Not going to have a first XI that strong for a while.

 

[Ikki]

I blame Lampard tbh.

Joking but kind of true. I think fitting him in is what killed the balance. If you had a proper holder like Carrick, Scholes sitting near him and moving the ball forward, and Gerrard bombing up and down that would have been more than enough. Lampard's goals didn't justify the lack of balance he'd give to that team IMO - especially since he didn't score many anyway.

England also didn't have an 'amazing' front-line but IMO they had good enough; and in tournaments like the WC I think midfield, defence and goalie matter more as you can basically draw your way to victory. Also, I've always thought the forward choices have been a but gutless or at best safe. Someone like Sturridge has been earmarked for a long time as a talent and it shouldn't have taken an amazing season with Liverpool for him to be in the side and at least getting experience. Even at a younger age he would have been much better than your Heskeys, Zamoras and Carrolls of the world.

I think his current generation might end up doing better - despite not having half that ability in the 'golden generation' - because bar Rooney I don't think there is an established star that they'd accommodate which I think will work in their favour.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it takes hindsight to say that, because IIRC he scored a bunch of goals in qualifying for 2006 and it was one of his best seasons for Chelsea. His hilariously bad World Cup really came out of the blue. Pretty sure Scholes had retired by then anyway, so you would just go with your formation with Lampard in place of Scholes.

FWIW I think dropping Lampard would have been legitimate. Rooney played a very similar role for United at the time, so could easily copy their system with Owen in place of Ruud. The point is just that they had to drop one of the Nike-sponsored superstars to make a coherent team, there are countless ways to actually do it.

 

[Dan]

Best 11 players =/= best team of 11.

What a novel discovery! It's almost as if we've had this discussion for a whole other sport relatively recently.

 

[Tangles]

I also think Lampard was a big problem. Even after Scholes I just think the team would have been better off pairing Gerrard with a DM.

The coaches always have to deal with the media and the fans. It's a poisoned chalice. The media will always push the big names. The fans will always push their player. You drop a name and you get roasted by both.

 

[Cabinet96]

It probably should've been a DM and two of Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard. Can still do that and get Rooney, Owen and Beckham in.

 

[cpr]

Doing that left Rooney in a role that isn't his best, and he lacked the discipline to keep to it. Joe Cole was a better option from the left in that period IMO. Rooney always tried to fight for the space that Lampard and Gerrard both wanted.

As I said earlier, the managers (probably thanks to public perception of 'dodgy foreign tactics') rarely shifted from 2 up top. Shame as Venables was the one who had sucess with the 4-3-2-1



We had Barry, Hargreaves and Carrick all defensive minded.
Gerrard, Lampard (and earlier Scholes) all attack minded

Yet we rarely selected one from each. Again, Square Pegs in bloody oddly shaped holes.