But, that would make everyone playing the euro a world class player. Kinda contradicts what you said in your last post, no ?
I'm not trying to troll anyone, and definately not trying to insult any Englishmen here (which it looks like I might've done...). Trust me, I love English football, have some close English friends who are absolutely fanatic about their NT, and in fact I will be moving to London myself in a few months. I wish them all the best and hope they will find some glory days again soon. I'm just saying that (unfortunately!) I see absolutely NO chance of that happening this tournament. I know that virtually no one is counting England among the favourites, but there's still people who think they are at least 'average' and might even get through the group fase. I don't, I think they will get absolutely hammered. Because I think that, besides the well-known problems always surrounding the English national team, they aren't even as good as some people believe them to be on a player by player basis compared to other teams. In that I am responding to Sian, who said: I do not think that is true at all. As you said, there's at least 6 other teams that have clearly better players than England, and England does not have 'way better' players than most of the other 11 teams. That's where my comment about England only having one world class player comes from. As Goliath said, yes, ofcourse there's no clear definition as to what a 'world class' player is exactly. And I wouldn't know how to formulate one either. It's just down to everyone's own opinion who they count as a world class player or not. I'm just saying that by my standards, England only have one. The reason I'm pointing that out is that players like Terry, Lampard and Gerrard are still often considered to be 'world class' players by a lot of people (I'm not saying you or anyone else here is one of them), while I rate them as being very, very average players. They are big in name only. And if they would've happened to be, say, Swedish, no one would give a .... about them. Which is why, and this is the main point I was trying to make, I think that despite the already very low expectations surrounding England for this tournament, I still think they are over-rated. Because people still rate a lot of their players too highly, and think they are better in that respect than some of the very average teams in this competition. Just because they are English, play in the Premier League, and their names are better known than those of the Swedish or Polish players, for example. Coming back to the 'one world star' remark, I think that England is very comparable in that respect to Sweden and Portugal. Both have only one real world star (Zlatan and Ronaldo), and more average players to make up to rest of the team. However, I think that those 'average' players are still better than the 'average' players in the England team. Even Denmark and Poland, while lacking a star like Rooney (although Lewandowski may be one after this tournament), have better teams overall than England. And I'm still only looking at the quality of the players by themselves right now, because of Sian's comment leading me to think he's overrating them. And we all know that the lack of quality players is only the start of England's problems... Leading me to conclude they will get absolutely hammered in this tournament. And honestly, I really do hope I am wrong in that. And if it turns out I am, I will gladly come back here to stand corrected. I hope they will surprise me and the world. I just don't see it happening until England follows France's example: dump all the old 'big names' and go build a team with the young, the fresh, and the talented.
I agree making a 23-man squad of the world's best serves as a solid definition. For starters, based on Transfermarkt.de's market values: Goalkeepers (3): Casillas (Spain) Neuer (Germany) Cech (Czech Republic) Leftbacks (2): Lahm (Germany) Marcelo (Brazil) Centrebacks (4): Piqué (Spain) Vidic (Serbia) Kompany (Belgium) Silva (Brazil) Rightbacks (2): Dani Alves (Brazil) Sergio Ramos (Spain)
You have to take into account that Spain alone would probably have about 10 players in such a squad, and Germany maybe 4 or 5. Holland would have about 4 as well.
Goalkeepers (3): Casillas (Spain) Neuer (Germany) Cech (Czech Republic) Leftbacks (2): Lahm (Germany) Marcelo (Brazil) Centrebacks (4): Piqué (Spain) Vidic (Serbia) Kompany (Belgium) Silva (Brazil) Rightbacks (2): Dani Alves (Brazil) Sergio Ramos (Spain) Centre-midfield (4): Iniesta (Spain) Fàbregas (Spain) Modric (Croatia) Schweinsteiger (Germany) Other midfield positions (4): Silva (Spain) Ribéry (France) Nani (Portugal) Bale (Wales) Strikers (4): Messi (Argentina) Ronaldo (Portugal) Rooney (England) Agüero (Argentina) How would you amend this Transfermarkt.de-derived list? Who would you cut? Who would you add? Red-marked players are non-European. A mere 5, which historically speaking probably isn't much. Bale, Vidic and Kompany didn't qualify for the tournament despite being European. But 15 of the above will feature in EURO 2012's squads. As for national counts (2+): Spain: 6 Brazil: 3 Germany: 3 Argentina: 2 Portugal: 2
Clearly a Dutch flavour to the above list is sorely missing. One only needs to consider this season's BL and EPL topscorers... Dutch candidates: van Persie Huntelaar Sneijder Robben van der Vaart
Well I'm going to go with just European players, and my squad would be something like this: Casillas Neuer Hart Lahm Ivanovic Pique Chiellini Kompany A.Cole Abidal Silva Mata Iniesta Xavi Schweinsteiger Mueller Alonso Robben Ribery Van Persie Rooney Benzema Ronaldo With players like Sneijder, Huntelaar, Lampard, Cech, Stekelenberg, Villa (if he wasn't injured) etc in contention as well
England are the only team in this group choosing to base themselves in Poland and travel to Ukraine for the matches. The Group D winner then plays in Kiev and the runner-up in Donetsk. England's vocal support will be sorely missed in Ukraine; where price hikes for hotel accommodation have done the hosts no favours - or was that part of the master plan? Sweden play all their games in Kiev and France (based in Donetsk) have their first two games 'at home' and travel to Kiev for the third. If France can get their campaign off to a winning start (against England) then I'd say France and Ukraine; otherwise the two yellow and blue flags of Ukraine and Sweden could be waving in the Ukrainian capital.
Ukrainian government has promissed to deal aggressively with price gougers and today all the prices are more reasonable so that excuse will not fly.
Some serious underestimating of France in this thread. They are one of the best teams in the tournament and 4th favourites to win it. The players in the team are far better than England, especially going forward.
everyone is aware of that, I don't think there is any English man on this board that expects us to beat them
Looking increasingly likely that Carroll is goin to start - I'm happy with that, think its a good move defensively more than anything. Just wish he'd drop Milner instead of the Ox
I want England to progress to the semi-finals. That should then give us a classic Germany-England match. Besides, that would serve us much better than facing Italian opposition.