English National Team Opinion

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by GunnerMan8705, Oct 17, 2016.

  1. GunnerMan8705

    GunnerMan8705 Member

    Oct 3, 2016
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    What are your thoughts on where both currently, and historically the English national team ranks?

    I think there is a jaded view of England's national team. Yes, they invented the game. Yes, they won the 1966 World Cup (but there was a ton of controversy in that) but other than that they have only made the Semi's 1 other time. They have finished better than 4th in Euros twice. Why do so many view them as a "power"?

    Their Average ranking in Fifa World rankings since the creation of the rankings is 10th. That is dumb as hell IMO. From a pure history perspective I think all other World Cup Winners (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Uruguay, France and Spain) are easily ahead of England. If England didn't have the 1 world cup, I would put 5-10 more teams right there with them.

    I keep seeing these "England underachieves against Nobody" headlines and think who in the hell do they think they are really? If people could actually look objectively I think England is a perennial 18-25 team in the world. Not this world power some like to claim they are. There is not that much separation IMO between the US-Mexico and England.

    Maybe, just maybe, if a team keeps "underachieving" they simply are not as good as you think they are....

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    I think the difference between England and the teams you've mentioned is that unlike the others, at no point over the last 20 or so years have they been a consensus top 4 team in the world. There is a good bit of difference between maybe the third best team and the 8th best team in the world at any point in time. There is not much difference between 6 and 12 though. When they've been good, they've had an argument for 4th/5th. When they've been bad, they are maybe 15. Most of the time, they've been 6-13 though. And teams at that level are a small dip in form from crashing out in the group stages of major tournaments. They also aren't good enough to get to a semi without some draw luck in the knockouts and they aren't a cinch for QFs either.

    It also hurts that they aren't good at developing creative playmaker types. Sometimes you can ride the form of your best player to get you through a difficult match. Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard aren't those types of players. Neither are the pacy guys they've had. Scholes is probably closest in terms of adding something brilliant to the attack, but he's more Xabi Alonso than Iniesta or Xavi
     
    GunnerMan8705 repped this.
  3. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Talk of England's place in history must include these (in)famous results.

    1990 World Cup semifinals v Germany

    1996 EURO quarterfinals v Spain
    1996 EURO semifinals v Germany

    1998 World Cup 2nd Round v Argentina

    2004 EURO quarterfinals v Portugal

    2006 World Cup quarterfinals v Portugal

    2012 EURO quarterfinals v Italy


    Six tournaments eliminated via penalties. And against some quality opposition.
     
    AlbertCamus repped this.
  4. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Football has been going on for more than 10 years you know!! Spain and France weren't exactly setting the world alight for the first 100+ years of their existence! I think it was something like 80+ years before England lost their first home game! They may not be one of the worlds top 5 teams RIGHT NOW but even then look at their results over the last couple of years, they won ALL twelve of their qualification games for the Euro's, are unbeaten in this world cup qualifier and have recently scored victories over France, Portugal and Germany (away), nobody thinks they are the best national team right now but equally they are not as poor as most people suggest they are either, to suggest that the USA! or Mexico come anywhere close is pure folly. And there was NOTHING controversial about their world cup win.
     
    superdave repped this.
  5. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    I think the thing the really hurts England is that they are just mentally weak. They don't have true leaders that go out there and say "We are not going to lose. Not today, not ever."

    They have the tools and tactics for the most part and all the resources one can ask for. But they just don't have the killer instincts and usually just crap the bed in big moments.

    And a lot of that stems from the fans and Tabloid media. They cringe just at the thought of penalties before the game is even played.
    Hard to win a game when people think you are already halfway to a loss before kickoff.
     
  6. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    They're not as good as they think they are, and not as bad as everyone else think's they are...i.e. a team that with the right breaks/good play can get to the QF of the World Cup/SF of the Euros, and with bad breaks/poor play doesn't make it out of the group stages.

    To put things in perspective, here are the results of England's past four major tournaments:

    United States - D, 1-1
    Algeria - D, 0-0
    Slovenia - W, 1-0
    Germany - L, 1-4
    France - D, 1-1
    Sweden - W, 3-2
    Ukraine - W, 1-0
    Italy - D, 0-0 (lost on PK's)
    Italy - L, 1-2
    Uruguay - L, 1-2
    Costa Rica - D, 0-0
    Russia - D, 1-1
    Wales - W, 2-1
    Slovakia - D, 0-0
    Iceland - L, 1-2

    That's 4 wins, 7 draws, 4 losses, i.e. a 50% win percentage, with wins over Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, and Wales; losses to Germany, Italy, Uruguay, and Iceland, and draws with the United States, Algeria, France, Italy, Costa Rica, Russia, and Slovakia.

    Basically, a second-tier European team on a par with the best teams from Africa, Asia, and CONCACAF, but one level below the World Cup contenders.
     
    superdave and GunnerMan8705 repped this.
  7. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    That sums them up currently though I would certainly expect them to beat the USA (a look at recent results shows the US losing to teams that England don't lose to) also I think I am right in saying that England have NEVER lost to an African team? But historically its also a different ball game, they have been one of the top teams for 150 years, just because they are in a bit of turmoil now doesn't have much of a bearing on their 'world standing' as a footballing nation, only a handful of countries have consistently been better over the years (Brazil, Germany, Italy to name a few).
     
  8. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Club:
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    The main problem for England can be summed up by the saying "club before country". England has simultaneously been an extreme early starter in professionalism (1885) and an extreme late comer to the international game (1946). The English fan, the English association and the English press is simply more interested in their league than in their national team. This navel gazing was the cause of their tactical retardation in 1950s and, eventually, their player development problems from the 1990s onward. Much like the English focus in their local league led them to not care about tactical developments elsewhere, currently the English are more worried about buying the best players for their club over developing them. Indeed, their academies often have as many foreign players as local ones.

    The only period of time where they had both competitive players and competitive tactics was in the relatively brief period from 1962 to 1990.
     
    superdave repped this.
  9. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Late comer to the international game??? The first England international was in 1872!!! As for that bit about developing talent have you seen how well the youth teams are doing right now? The biggest problem the current team has is awfully bad management from the top of the FA down to the manger himself and yes the fact that the players care far more for league football, they don't exactly 'bust a gut' for the national team. The English supporters themselves don't help though, they also prefer league football, the problem is most international matches are pretty 'turgid' afairs.
     
  10. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Club:
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    LOL, England was not a member of FIFA until 1946. That is the international game. Yearly games against other home nations is not international. They're not even really other nations. England missed out on a lot of development during the 1930's and by the time 1950 rolled around it showed a lot.

    Also, consider the history of most of the great WC nations. Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy had their first great success in FIFA tournaments fairly early before their pro league had truly matured. Simply put, these countries have historically been focused on their national team.
     
  11. DCYC

    DCYC Member

    Chivas, DC United, Reno 1868
    Mar 24, 2010
    Reno, NV
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    Im sorry to say this as I'm a very big UK fan but they currently have the same player pool as (let say) belguim. english game needs to grow up and be more mature. Currently, England is full of playrers that ain't bad, but if they're not going to perfofrm better whats the case=?
     
  12. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the point you are making but England (obviously) started by only playing the other home nations because nobody else had national teams! However they were playing 'other' national football teams before 1946.
     
  13. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Club:
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    Bolivia
    Well sure, but the general attitude was to not give much importance to FIFA tournaments and the NT suffered because of that. Not the only country to do that. Spain also had this problem for decades. In their case it was worse because the different regions could not get along. Two things saved Spain, an incredible development work in Barcelona and a set of players that set regionalism aside. At least England doesn't have as much problem with regionalism. What it has yet to find is a big club that is really willing to develop.
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  14. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Like I said before football has been around for more than 20 years!
     
  15. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    They don't have the player pool of Belgium. Their player pool is deeper than Belgium's, but the best 5-10 players aren't as good, and that's what matters. You can take a peak over at estimated transfer values at teansfermarkt to confirm this if you want.

    Having a team full of players that "ain't bad" isn't good enough to win a WC, even if the team is playing together in a more mature style. The big reason they aren't playing that way is because they lack the technical quality to do so. Don't get me wrong, they have decent talent, but being 7th-10th in talent with no obvious top 5 world level player in the center of that squad isn't going to produce longer tourney runs.
     
  16. AlbertCamus

    AlbertCamus Member+

    Colorado Rapids
    Sep 2, 2005
    Colorado, USA
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    One reason I think the England underperforms, although there is historical evidence that undermines this argument, is that they all play for clubs in their home country. It seems to me a disadvantage because they players are not excited to be around each other, it is not special. In the US team, for example, but also those of most other countries, players are coming together from far and wide, most ply their trade away from home, and they are glad to be around their countrymen.

    Germany undermines this a bit because so many play for German clubs, but also the Italia team of 2006- they won the cup with an entirely domestically based team (the other team that was like that in that World Cup was Saudi Arabia- they lost every game), but that was when the Italian league was besieged with fixing, so maybe the siege mentality helped the national team.
     
  17. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Another factor that not too many people have discussed yet is that poor state of England's managing/coaching pool.

    Is there any other top league besides the Premier League which employs so many foreign managers? There are only four English managers in the EPL this year (Eddie Howe - Bournemouth, Sean Dyche - Burnley, Alan Pardew - Crystal Palace, Mike Phelan - Hull City), all at non-contending clubs likely to finish in the bottom half of the table. And no English manager has ever won the Premier League, a fact which is rather astounding.

    And is there any other national team that has so much trouble finding a decent domestic manager? If Steve McLaren, Roy Hodgson, Sam Allardyce, and Gareth Southgate are the best you can do, then obviously part of the problem is that you are not developing good managers.

    It's kind of telling when the only world-class manager from England over the last quarter century was Bobby Robson, who's been dead for over seven years.
     
  18. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Sam Allardyce is a great manager, don't forget he has only managed clubs low on resources and what Eddie Howe has done with a club the size of Bournemouth is nothing short of astounding! I wouldn't be surprised if he was the next manager of Arsenal.
     
  19. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    I think there is some merit to the Manager argument.
    I would emphasize that it is very peculiar and strange that the best managers are coaching English club teams year in and year out, while the English National Team keeps on selecting a bunch of guys who seem to be in over their head.

    That does not seem to happen in other places.
     
  20. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Sorry....I'm still laughing too hard.

    Sam Allardyce is the perfect manager for clubs who are happy finishing mid-table every year and/or avoiding relegation (and I say that as the supporter of a team he once managed, Newcastle), and for National teams who are perfectly happy just qualifying for major tournaments and maybe making the knockout rounds, but have no ambition to actually win anything.

    But there's a reason that no big club or true World Cup contender has ever offered him a job....and that's because he's nowhere close to being a world-class manager.

    There's a reason that Man United, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool, or Tottenham have never even bothered to interview him when they've had job openings...
     
  21. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I'm sorry but just look at where the clubs that Sam managed are now that he has gone! Look at what he did for Bolton, he took them into Europe when he managed them, where are they now? He saved Sunderland from certain relegation last year, look at them now under Moyes!
    Blackburn Rovers anyone, how have they done since he left? Anybody that really knows their football realises that he is a bloody good manager. Every club Sam has managed has been 'limited' in budget and he has taken the most unfashionable of clubs into the top half of the Premier League. I bet Sunderland would take him back in a heartbeat! I reckon Bolton rue the day he left, he is only un-employable because of his 'comments' caught on film.
     
  22. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    Managing is includes people (ego management) and tactical issues specific to certain talent levels. Someone can be a good manager in terms of maximizing results with less talent, but be not do as well in terms of meeting the extra expectations with better quality. Martin O'Neill is great with lower-mid table league expectations, but not so wonderful with a faster ride. So he gets asked to manage Ireland.

    Sam is similar.

    On the other hand, I think it's fair to say that a big name would struggle more with a lower-mid table club in the league than he or O'Neill.
     
    JLSA repped this.

Share This Page