It's interesting that "America" meaning the US, is solely getting the blame, when its only on two networks. Does this mean that other international broadcasters will respect the game by refusing to profit from this heinous agreement by refusing show ads during the breaks? The BBC will refuse, for sure (as their charter prevents them from running commercials).
This is a straw man. I never talked about tournaments. Iran, like England, is not a good tournament team. However, would you say a team like Belgium is going to permanently overtake England if they have a few good years? We already saw what happened to the Belgian golden generation. It is the same thing with Uzbekistan. Iran has consistently been top 4/5 (before/after Australia) forever. Despite stumbling at the semifinals, Iran often makes the semifinals/top 4 in the Asian cup, and has the best win/match ratio of all time in the asian cup. And only Japan/Skorea/Australia has more consistent WCQ performance and Iran is not far behind, outperforming these teams in some cycles, and sometimes outperforming them in the world cup as well. And Iran has an all time winning head to head record against every single AFC team except saudi (which is a tie), and is typically ranked in the top 2-3 in fifa rankings in AFC. So if Japan/Skorea/Australia have not, I don't see a team like Uzbekistan permanently overtaking Iran. And Uzbekistan are even bigger chokers/underperformers than Iran. So they will not be expected to outperform Iran in tournaments, especially not consistently. Every team can have its own weird patterns. I already mentioned England. Then there are others such as Netherlands who never won a world cup and only won 1 euro. Spain was similar for a long time until 2008. Egypt dominates the Africa cup of nations but for the longest time had difficulty qualifying to the world cup, and when they did they underperformed. Tunisia makes the world cup a lot but never got past the group stages. But these teams are still consistently among the best in their confederations.
England is a good tournament team. In the last decade alone they reached two EURO finals, a WC SF and QF and won the U21 EURO twice.
Not sure what is so amusing. In recent times they've become a decent tournament side. You're right that before that they were pretty rubbish, but are we judging teams now on how they performed 30-40 years ago?
Before Spain went on to produce there stunning period of domination (which we are arguably still in), they were traditionally an underperformer on the global stage.
True. But Spain used the core nucleus of one of the best Club teams in history to get over the hump and dominate International futbol. They had a style and an identity that no other team could emulate. That Barcelona tiki-taka team was just simply unstoppable within their time frame and they added pieces from other good clubs to complement that core. I just do not see that from England. Most of their best league players are foreigners. There's some great talent in England who are English , don't get me wrong but the main spine of the team is nothing like Iniesta, Xavi, Busquets, Alba, Puyol, etc.
I'm not saying England will do that, I'm just pushing back on the laughing emojis and that tounament success is about tradition and history (not recent performances) in reply to the guy said England had been a good tournament team in recent times!
I understand but you picked the one example that is the exception to the rule and a crazy anomaly. Maybe France is what England can try to become. But as of right now they are closer to Netherlands than France in my mind. A team that gets close but just cannot mentally get over the that aforementioned hump. (Other than '66.)
I don't disagree, I'm not saying they can become Spain, but that they have shown in recent times they have become a good tournament team (doesnt seem a particularly laughable statement!)
every team has ups and downs. you get lucky that xavi and iniesta are born in the same decade and you're up in the skies, or you imagine you are someone but in reality you've got to wait for another r.carlos, ronaldo and ronaldinho as brasil does for 20 years now.
It's about both. Having a great tradition and history is one part. How you're performing now is another part. The two do not necessarily have to mesh. No one is saying England are a great tournament team, they won't be unless they win something in my opinion, but they have undoubtedly become a decent tournament team over recent years.
Yes. I think they have been a good tournament team. But that was under another manager who was ripped apart by some fans and media. With this new guy I am not sure how things will go. Maybe they trend upwards. Maybe they stagnate. Maybe they fall flat on their face like 2014. I really do not know how to set my expectations for this team. It will be fun to watch no matter what.
England never beat a top team in tournament football under Southgate. Some good teams but not top tier. They really should have beaten Italy in the Euro final. Southgate's England were very consistent in getting past teams in the bracket just below. The problem appeared to be in game management. He was also very good at qualifying but that should really be a given now considering the size of modern tournaments. England could have beaten France in the World Cup but it is hard to argue that they deserved to. That England have never won the Euros is quite bizarre, when you consider the teams that have done so. It is cup football and the number of times they've gone out on penalties is ridiculous. It is very hard to know how England will do under Tuchel. England have not played a competitive match against anyone challenging. Winning home and away against Serbia and Albania is hard to rate. I like that Tuchel is more likely to make dynamic changes during matches and won't try to squeeze the biggest names into the team at the expense of balance. England should be capable of beating anyone but Spain or France would be favourites. We have to expect Argentina to play well in the finals. Brazil should be good under Ancelotti. Then there is the weather to contend with, the elongated tournament will have an impact and England's most obvious weakness is a lack of back up to Kane. The knock out stages will be fascinating. Playing an obviously unfit Kane in 24 is a big criticism of Southgate. If England do finally win it will be all the better for all the decades of disappointments.
Netherlands are not top tier? That is going to make certain posters around here a bit salty. But I get your point.
That Netherlands team wasn't top tier. Doesn't rank alongside their best teams of the past. They were a similar level to England on the day.
England would lose to teams like Netherlands before Southgate. I think he is not given enough credit.
England choke when they come up against a "big" team, by which I mean Brazil, West Germany, Italy, Argentina and latterly Spain and France. Spain at home in 1996 was the exception. 1970 k.o. by West Germany 1986 k.o. by Argentina 1990 k.o. AET by West Germany 1996 beat Spain on pens but lost to Germany on pens 1998 k.o. by Argentina 2002 k.o. by Brazil 2010 k.o. by Germany 2012 k.o. by Spain on pens 2020 k.o. by Italy on pens 2022 k.o by France 2024 k.o. by Spain
I don't think it's hard to argue they deserved to beat France, or maybe better said as they should have beaten France. More possession, more shots, more shots on target, more passes into the final third etc etc But like the Italy final, they couldn't make that step. If Kane scores the second penalty, who knows, but he didn't so we do know.
England could have won that France match and no-one would have thought it unfair. To say England should have is a step further. It was a very good match of football that didn't go our way. There are far too many of those matches that were very even but went against us. One tournament it will all go right. Maybe it will be next year!
If we're talking history then for its first 50 years or so the English national team was pretty dominant! Or are we just picking on particular periods of history to make our claims? As somebody pointed out neither Spain nor France were particularly 'impressive' for the first 100 years or so of international competition To this day only 8 countries on the planet can say they've won the World Cup.