Is this England's best chance?

[king_saladin]

Looking at the squad on paper... (which may be an overrated way to judge a squad - you tell me) this could be the best chance that England has to win another World Cup.

It's in Europe. And there are many great England players at proper age.

This 'oppurtunity' might never come again, at the same level. I'm not saying England will decline... but you never know with the future - things change with time, and the rest of the world is quickly catching up in football quality.

What do you all think?

[Colm]

I didn't rate our chances in 2002 or 2004 but i do think we have a good chance to do very well in 2006 if we qualify (which i'm sure we will), Our best players will be in start to be in their prime, Rooney will mature, Robinson will get better next season so i don't see why not but theres other good teams in like Brazil (as allways) Spain allways has a very good team but like England dosn't do well as expected, Argentina's squad is very strong like the Italians and Germany are at home so lots of teams could win it.

[PAUL SILVA]

England is solid at every position, except maybe goalkeeping. With guys like Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard, Terry leading the way, this may very well be the best team England fields in quite some time. My vote is yes.
I think France and Italy are in decline, this should help Englands chances even more. That being said there are still some powerhouses to contend with. In addition to Brazil, I expect a strong challenge from Spain, Holland and of course Portugal. :)

[Colm]

England is solid at every position, except maybe goalkeeping. With guys like Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard, Terry leading the way, this may very well be the best team England fields in quite some time. My vote is yes.
I think France and Italy are in decline, this should help Englands chances even more. That being said there are still some powerhouses to contend with. In addition to Brazil, I expect a strong challenge from Spain, Holland and of course Portugal. :)I think our GK problem is ending, for the last couple of years we have have had gk problems but we got rid of calamity James now and Robinson has had a brillaint season for us and hasn't done anything wrong in a England jersy yet, i reckon he'll inprove by next year and turn out to be a top class keeper, he aint a top class keeper yet but i reckon he'll become one :)

[Crestofthestars]

The team isn't better than the '96 one on paper. In fact I'd say its less balanced.

SWP, Downing, King, Carrick, Defoe, Rooney etc...no to your question.

[Prenn]

The team is better than 96.

[sinner78]

First we have to qualify ,then we'll talk about if we can win it or not.

[sendorange]

I do not see why 2006 is the best chance, I think it's clear the team will be even stronger in 2010.

The likes of Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, and both Coles will be at their peaks then as 29/30 year olds, Rooney will be a fully fledged adult and only the likes of Beckham and Gary Neville will need to be replaced - which could be done already. Plus there would be the next generation of kids coming through, particularly as most clubs have improved their academies.

[shoenz24]

The team isn't better than the '96 one on paper. In fact I'd say its less balanced.

SWP, Downing, King, Carrick, Defoe, Rooney etc...no to your question.

I didn't know there was a world cup in 96.....

[Revelian]

The team isn't better than the '96 one on paper. In fact I'd say its less balanced.

SWP, Downing, King, Carrick, Defoe, Rooney etc...no to your question.

.....and they're all first teamers, eh?

Revelian

[king_saladin]

I do not see why 2006 is the best chance, I think it's clear the team will be even stronger in 2010.

The likes of Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, and both Coles will be at their peaks then as 29/30 year olds, Rooney will be a fully fledged adult and only the likes of Beckham and Gary Neville will need to be replaced - which could be done already. Plus there would be the next generation of kids coming through, particularly as most clubs have improved their academies.

But it will be in South Africa ;)

Though I guess it helps a lot that it isn't in the Americas... and I'm guessing the climate of South Africa in June will suit England.

[Rise]

The illogical, bias, St.George cross waving part of me says we will be one of the best teams in the world, if not the best, for the next year or two. So there is absolutely no reason why not.

The slightly more detatched, objective, level-headed side of me stil says we have one of the strongest squads available to any nation.

Its impossible to say that this will be our best or last chance for years to come, but its certainly the strongest position we've been in for ages. Whoever said we had 'less balance' than '96 is a pleb. Genuine world class across the back. Genuine world class across the middle. Genuine world class up front. Hardworking players, grit and an abundence of technical ability. How much more balanced can we be?

[The Potter]

The team isn't better than the '96 one on paper. In fact I'd say its less balanced.

SWP, Downing, King, Carrick, Defoe, Rooney etc...no to your question.

Shearer, Gazza and Seaman are the only players from '96 who would get in this team.

[Milos]

The general feeling a couple of years ago was that the England team would probably peak around 2006. I think we have the right mix of age, skill and grit in the team to be able to win it plus four of the squad members won big trophies this season (if that makes a difference).

[MetroSexual]

No one can predict the future. I think England will do very well at WC 2006. How well is anybody's guess, definitely something to look forward to. Will Germany '06 be England's best chance ever? That is too hard to say. The important thing right now is that England have a solid all-around team with depth in most spots and a healthy roster to work with. I hope that WC '06 is the year for England - we'll just have to wait and see how the rest of qualifying goes and then the ALL important group draw...

[Crestofthestars]

I didn't know there was a world cup in 96.....

Way to miss the point you clot.


.....and they're all first teamers, eh?

Revelian

No...they're young promising players already mostly among the best in the league. That seems to suggest that England will have another good team after the current one...



Whoever said we had 'less balance' than '96 is a pleb. Genuine world class across the back. Genuine world class across the middle. Genuine world class up front. Hardworking players, grit and an abundence of technical ability. How much more balanced can we be?


Genuine world class across the middle. I don't call being hemmed in defending your own penalty box against Portugal and a piss poor French side for 90 minutes world class.
England don't have one adequate holding player. Further more Lampard is no great retainer of the ball unlike Scholes was even on a bad day and Gerrard loves his 50 yarders up to Owen so the ball ends up coming back twice as much.

World class upfront? Basically one 19 year old. As good as Rooney is him and Mickey Owen aren’t on par with Ronaldo, Adriano and Ronaldinho. That's a genuine world class front line.

And how much width do England have? You have Joe Cole on the left, and Beckham on the right who is far too important to bother getting chalk on his boots anymore.

Balanced my arse you pleb.




Shearer, Gazza and Seaman are the only players from '96 who would get in this team.

Sure about that? I think people are forgetting how good the '96 side was.

David Seaman, Gary Neville, Tony Adams, Gareth Southgate, Stuart Pearce, Darren Anderton, David Platt, Paul Gascoigne, Steve McManaman, Teddy Sheringham, Alan Shearer


Seaman vs Robinson? Seaman

Southgate and Tony Adams vs Rio and Terry? I'd say Rio and Terry but Southgate and Adams are no mugs

Pearce vs Cole? Personally I'd take Psycho over that dips*** Cole any day

Platt/Ince/Gazza vs Gerrard and Lampard? You can take the media hype for Gerrard and Lampard at face value if you like but I know which midfield looks more solid to me.

Anderton vs Beckham? Anderton was s***e even when he wasn't injured, but
mind you Beckham has never produced properly at a major tournament in his life.

Shearer & Sheringham vs Owen & Rooney? Tell you what, that is close, and I'd go with Shearer and Teddy.


Even if you think the ’06 team is better there isn’t much difference there and the ’96 lads couldn’t win anything even with the home advantage. I’m not saying England can’t do it next year but you look at Brazil and the Argies and I wouldn’t go pronouncing them world champions just yet

[The Potter]

Sure about that? I think people are forgetting how good the '96 side was.

David Seaman, Gary Neville, Tony Adams, Gareth Southgate, Stuart Pearce, Darren Anderton, David Platt, Paul Gascoigne, Steve McManaman, Teddy Sheringham, Alan Shearer



Seaman vs Robinson? Seaman

Agreed

Southgate and Tony Adams vs Rio and Terry? I'd say Rio and Terry but Southgate and Adams are no mugs

Well Adam's was sh1t at international level but in general agreed.

Pearce vs Cole? Personally I'd take Psycho over that dips*** Cole any day

No ********ing way talent wise Cole by a country mile.

Platt/Ince/Gazza vs Gerrard and Lampard? You can take the media hype for Gerrard and Lampard at face value if you like but I know which midfield looks more solid to me.

I've already icluded Gazza and I don't know why you have these as block choices. But Gerrard is better than Ince (though Ince was quality) and Lampard is much, much, much better than Platt.

Anderton vs Beckham? Anderton was s***e even when he wasn't injured, but
mind you Beckham has never produced properly at a major tournament in his life.

Beckham was good in all his tornuments bar '04 and a one ******** up in'98 and yes he is better than Anderton



Shearer & Sheringham vs Owen & Rooney? Tell you what, that is close, and I'd go with Shearer and Teddy.

And I'd go with Rooney and Shearer

You also missed out on G.Neville who is a much better player now, and I'd also take J.Cole over Macca.

Even if you think the ’06 team is better there isn’t much difference there and the ’96 lads couldn’t win anything even with the home advantage. I’m not saying England can’t do it next year but you look at Brazil and the Argies and I wouldn’t go pronouncing them world champions just yet


There's plenty of difference in quality imo, and has anyone declared them as champs?

[Rise]

Genuine world class across the middle. I don't call being hemmed in defending your own penalty box against Portugal and a piss poor French side for 90 minutes world class.
England don't have one adequate holding player. Further more Lampard is no great retainer of the ball unlike Scholes was even on a bad day and Gerrard loves his 50 yarders up to Owen so the ball ends up coming back twice as much.

World class upfront? Basically one 19 year old. As good as Rooney is him and Mickey Owen aren’t on par with Ronaldo, Adriano and Ronaldinho. That's a genuine world class front line.

And how much width do England have? You have Joe Cole on the left, and Beckham on the right who is far too important to bother getting chalk on his boots anymore.

Balanced my arse you pleb.

So, if Im understanding you correctly, you're basing your 'no balance' theory on some poor performances at Euro 2004, the fact that you dont rate Roon and Owen as highly as Ronaldo and co, and something to do with Joe Cole and Beckham? Hmmm.

France was a very poor performance I'll conceed, but Portugal IIRC was down to fatigue, and massive loss of form by Beckham, and the loss of any attacking outlet through Rooney. There was no reason past footballing logic as to why we couldnt have won that game.

I'll conceed we've never replaced Paul Ince in his Italy '97-blood-dripping-from-his-skull glory but I still believe you're doing our current midfield a great discredit. Going forward we've got more than we've had in a little while. Joe Cole and Beckham, or even SWP, do provide us with width. Im not sure why you seem to believe they dont. Ok, its not the widest game in the competition, but its enough to give us different options to attack through.

And Ok, Rooney and Owen individually may not be quite as good as Ronaldo or Adriano in a straight dual of Top Trumps. They aren't the bottom line best on the planet. But then again, neither are far away from it, and sat in front of a decent midfield, are more than capable of taking apart any defence in the world.

The midfield may not be the best in the world. The strikers may not be the best. But they are capable of standing toe to toe with the best across the park. Solid at the back, creative and hard working in the middle which can release long balls, make runs themselves, or use use the flanks, and a good mix of speed and technical ability up front. Balanced? Baring the return of Bryan Robson, Im happy.

As for the 96 vs 06 debate.

GK: Seaman beats out Robinson without question. 1-0
DL: Tricky, Cole offers more going forward, but Pearce was more Englishly solid at the back. Psycho gets it. 2-0
CB: Southgate & Adams vs. Rio and Terry. Class of 06 chalk one up. And consider Sol is in contention aswell. 2-2
RB: Neville model .96 against Neville model .06. Experience is everything. 2-3.
ML: McManamanamanaman? What a disaster. At least Joe Cole looks to know what he's doing out there. 2-4
CM: Platt, Ince, Gazza vs Gerro, Lamps. Mix and match. Incey in with Lampard maybe. Both have their strengths over one another. 3-5
RM: Anderton was nothing close to Beckham, despite what media influenced opinion might make you think of Becks. 3-6
SC: Owen is a great talent undoubtfully. But Shearer was better. 4-6
SC: Teddy vs. Rooney. Both joined Man United. One on a free, one for 30m. Go figure. 4-7

Depth: Was there anything else below the '96 starting XI? Stoppage time 8th for the current lot.

8-4 '06 I make that.

[Fullerov]

England will always be a side with a chance of taking the WC, so no its not our 'best' chance.

[Danson's Magic Hands]

Shearer, Gazza and Seaman are the only players from '96 who would get in this team.

Yeah, I don't think the likes of Gary Neville would get into this team

Hold on a minute ...