1. There is no such USA keeper named Hudson so I don't have much choice but to picture him in my head. 2. Our keepers are so good, I bet even our fictitious keepers could beat out James.
I was responding to thoughts on Owen Hargreaves which touched on criticism of Steven Gerrard, who plays for my favorite club team. Why is that so remarkable? If you will recall, this thread began with a discussion of the relative merits of the two midfielders. Later it descended into a discussion of the relative quality of the England squad versus the Manchester United squad (neither of which I care about particularly) which seemed to be a useful comparison for the age old question of "Which is better: an elite club team or a national team". It was you, after all, who insecurely thought that the minor praise of Tim Hudson (who plays for the club team that was a the crux of the discussion) was an indictment of all English goalkeepers. It was you who started the jingoistic and nationalistic sniping (just get in your place like a good little boy) stuff. Very likely since if you look at the greater part of this thread (which I have been involved in for some time) I have been in perfect agreement with Matt Clark. I even agree with 75% of your comments . . . And echoed that England has a better defense blah blah blah. And better forwards blah blah blah. But how can you criticize Man Utd's defense against strikers of the quality of Beattie, Rooney, Owen, Henry, et al - when they do very well against them game in and game out? Over the past two seasons, they have had the better of Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton, no? And that includes some very shaky times for Man Utd (when they have been missing key players such as Beckham, Keane, and many defenders). Man Utd has an excellent record against every team but the very creme de la creme. And their progress into the deepest levels of European competition shows that (like England) they can also rise to the level of top opposition. They just can't beat Real Madrid, who are basically the club equivalent to Brazil. If you will remember. Brazil utterly outclassed England (in the World Cup) in just the same manner that Real Madrid outclassed Man Utd. England's players admitted they were star-struck. SGE froze. Granted Steven Gerrard may have made a great difference in the side, but that is how it goes. The game against Argentina was a good result for England, but it was a terribly negative footballing game from both teams. Argentina was on rotten form and Juan Sebestian Veron was miserable in a key role for Argentina. England's match against Denmark was a comprehensive victory (at least in the first half), but did you see how poorly the Danish defense matched up to England's? Heskey tossed Martin Laurson around like a toy. Denmark couldn't defend on set pieces for all the money in the world. It was not a case of England "rising to the level of competition" in that game. Denmark was overmatched. Yet that was England's only victory that was particularly impressive. I don't see how Man Utd's trevails against Real Madrid can realistically be used to show them as inferior to England in the resolve and "rise to the level of adversity" departments. Except that to Man Utd's credit, they at least attacked and scored some attractive goals in the second game (of course it was David Beckham who came on to do that bit of work for them) against Real Madrid.
There has been too much baseball in the news (even though I didn't watched more than a couple hours of the playoffs). I keep saying Tim Hudson (Oakland A's pitcher) when I mean Tim Howard. Just goes to show that I don't have visions of US keepers dancing like sugar plums in my head. More likely left-handed power pitchers I guess.
When everything is working, United plays more attractive football than England. There seems to be something missing from the side this season. I think that there is something more to Beckham's game than service and free kicks. There is a force of will that United have not found yet this year. It is still early yet. Kind of an odd comparison, though, with so many players in common. I think the match would probably be a somewhat dull affair, not being able to live up to the fireworks on display here!
I thought we were talking about England and Man U. Who keeps allowing these Hargreaves posts in here?!
You've got a point. The Champions League is probably closer to the style of international football. And Man Utd rarely create the numerous chances in the Champions League that they create in the Premiership, particuarly when playing against well-organised defences such as you find at international level. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you as such, just pointing out that international football is hugely different to the Premiership.
You are probably right. But I have to wonder - is a team like Panathikanos really weaker than a team like Leichtenstein or Macedonia? I think they might be on par (when you include all the intangibles) but considering the backgrounds of the average player . . . I think Leichtenstein has a couple players in the Swiss Superliga (Vaduz) and one or two in the Austrian Bundesliga and maybe one in Italy. And Macedonia was composed almost entirely of players from their domestic league. I simply don't understand how players drawn from these leagues can be so superior to players on top (or even higher level) European club teams. Vaduz is probably on par with a First Division side at best. Granted there are always national teams that tend to overachieve relative to their domestic league status (US, Korea or Japan - although I think that their respective fledgling domestic leagues are improving in quality) or the leagues that their top players play in (Mexico, South Africa, etc). But in general, it is safe to say that the quality of a national team's players bears itself out in the quality of the teams their players sign with.
His vision/anticipation, his first touch and the quickness in which he provides his service are at a different level (during the run of play). It is not just his ability to cross the ball or even pass it directly to the foot of his teammate. But I think the Real Madrid "experiment" is bearing out that Beckham sees the game very well and that he has a great chemistry with other attacking players. When Man Utd forced the game more to the center of the pitch during the Veron experiment, it limited/reduced Beckham's ability to link up play in the transition from the middle third of the field to the final third. Veron held the ball up and his natural pace of playing the ball did not lend itself to the timing of most of Man Utd's attacking players. Giggs and Christiano Ronaldo are very gifted one-on-one players with the ball at their feet. And they are capable of breaking defenses down on the ball, but they are not nearly as gifted at anticipating the movements of their fellow attacking players. Beckham is faulted too much by people for not being more of a one v one player, but he rightly understands that he is more dangerous making a quick pass that unbalances the offense (when a Scholes, Van Nistelrooy, Zidane, Figo, Raul or Ronaldo breaks) than he is feinting and dribbling around the man in front of him. As a result, his first instinct is to settle the ball absolutely (with his stunning first touch) and place himself in a position to play in other attacking players before looking for his own opportunity. At the same time, his opportunity to play more centrally with Real Madrid has given him more opportunities to follow-up play on secondary runs. He is not tasked with as much defensive responsibility along the wing. This provides him with more touches on the ball in an attacking position (from rebounds, poor clearances, etc) than he normally saw in the last two seasons with Manchester United. I am not surprised that Manchester United are missing him, nor that he is succeeding for Real Madrid. In fact, I think that as a direct result of losing his quick ball movement, Manchester United will rely even more on Van Nistelrooy, because the other secondary offensive players (particularly Scholes, Giggs and any secondary striker) will miss Beckham's ability to quickly unbalance a defense. Aside from Scholes, their other attacking players are slower in their recognition and more deliberate in executing their passes - whether they are on target or no. I don't think that there are more than a handful of players in the world who complement great off the ball players more than David Beckham.
But it is not "thoughts" on Hargreaves - it is "thoughs" doesn't that technically mean anything but Hargreaves? Hargreaves is good though Gerrard is better Hargreaves is good though he couldn't walk into Manchester United's first team Hargreaves is good though Jens Jeremies is better Hargreaves plays for England though they aren't very exciting . . .
Actually I think you'll find that, for every 1,000 mentions of the 1966 win, probably only 1 of those will have been made by an English fan. With at least 990 of the other references being made by Scots, along the lines of "All youse English do is go on about 1966....." Seriously - where have any England fans mentioned it, that you feel the need to bring it up (and not only bring it up, but accuse us of bringing it up all the time)?
Panathinaikos are almost certainly a better team than either Liechtenstein or Macedonia. But my point was really about the style of football played and the pace the games are played at. If Man Utd lose a Premiership match it doesn't really matter - they've got 40-odd games to put it right, and they'll win enough to win the league most seasons. If England lose a qualifying match for a tournament then they're in real trouble when it comes to qualifying. Therefore, most teams at international level play a much more cautious game and don't create as much. England struggled against teams like Macedonia because the Macedonians stuck 11 men behind the ball and looked for the counter attack. England couldn't afford to bomb forward like United do in the Premiership (and occasionally in the Champs Lge) because if they lost a qualifying game they'd be looking at second place in the group.
A master of the art. I have to say, LSC, you walked face-first into this one. But United are still better than England.
Sorry Matt - going to have to disagree with you on this one. I've heard these statements before about ManU being better than England and I have to say I've always thought they were nonsense - but I have to qualify that. I think it unlikely that ManU could beat England assuming that Scholes, for instance, plays for England and not ManU. I think if it were the other way round and the English players at ManU didn't play for England then the game would be much closer... but I still think England would probably win.
First of all there is a huge difference between Macedonia and Lichtenstein. IMO Macedonia is comparable to a division 1 team, while Lichtenstein would have a hard time surviving in division 3 or in some other 4. level league in the big countries. The reason that they don’t lose by 10 goals on average is that the superior teams find absolutely no motivation , except basic professionalism, to play against an opponent they know they’ll beat.
Well, there is of course no scientific means by which to work it out. For a start, four England starters play for Manchester United and three of them (Butt excepting) also start for United. So that makes the whole debate a bit fairyland. Taking the team as a whole rather than attempting to compare individual strengths is the closest you can get to solving this and United are just a far more integrated, communally experienced side than England. Which is perfectly natural, given that United play together every week, as opposed to once every few months. In a meaningful match, with two sides at full strenght, a side like United will beat a side like England. Put it that way.
I honestly don't think so at all, if only because Svennis has made England so hard to beat, especially in big matches. Add to that the counter attacking threat of Owen, which is something ManYoo haven't always looked great at coping with, and I think there's no question they would be hard pressed to avoid defeat, let alone win. In general I do believe club teams are stronger than most National teams. But I'm not convinced in this case.
Yeah, well ... like I said, it's hardly a scientific area of debate. But let me add this - in a side like United, there is a player who looks a lot like Paul Scholes and who has scored 25-odd goals this calendar year. In a side like England, there's also a chap who looks a bit like Scholes, but who, for mainly the tactical reasons you mention, hasn't scored in over three years ...
If United were to face England, wouldn't that create a situation where Scholes could be found playing with himself in front of a lot of people?
Ah yes, but in a parallel universe where he could be on both teams... Hang on - this is getting silly. Actually I think we've gone way past silly and into a whole new catergory. I agree it's a ridiculous argument but it's one of those statements that is always made by united supporters and it's always p'ssed me off a bit because I think that an England team would not necessarily lose to united or even a team like united for the simple reason that England can choose players IN FORM for several vital positions. So, taking your point on board about comparing individual players on board, I think that Ferdinand's form of late has been somewhat less than Stellar and I don't think he should necessarily start in central defense. I could make a good case for our lad Terry who I've seen every minute of this season, (at least on Chelsea TV), but I also think Southgate is a useful player who has fallen out of favour with Sven probably due to his attitude but who also deserves another chance. I think that Beckham's crosses are better than Ronaldo's, although the latter's 38 step-over's at least provide entertainment value when he trips over and falls flat on his face. Is Scholes more effective at driving the team forward from mid-field then Gerrard? It's possible to argue that case but I'm sure we've all seen games where Scholes has been virtually invisible- I'm sure the same could be said of Gerrard. When Roy Keane was injured I think Butt made a better job of the holding mid-field role than Keane does now at his age and yet Keane nearly always plays. Leaving aside my parallel universe I think I'd be inclined to say that if they don't want him we'll have him with Gerrard or Lampard as the attacking mid-field player to partner him. So I think that if you go through the team one at a time, with England's ability to pick players in form and from other teams like Arsenal, Liverpool and, (dare I say it), Chelsea I think you can make a case for saying that it is likely that England would beat ManU. I agree that's arguable but I just don't accept this idea put forward but such intellectual heavyweights as that arrogant pituitary retard Roy Keane - that ManU, for example, would obviously beat England. In my view there's no obviously about it. Like I said, it's entirely acedemic anyway - but it's something that has always annoyed me.