So as most of you know Australia took out England yesterday at Upton Park with a 3-1 score. The English are going on about how this is their most embarrassing defeat in fifty-three years (since we beat them at WC1950). The thing is, I'm both flattered and perplexed that they've overlooked our victory over them in 1993. Do they really think the US team of 1993 was better than the Australia team of 2003? United States v. England at Foxboro Meola Armstrong Lapper Doyle Agoos Clavijo Dooley (Lalas, 69') Harkes Ramos (Jones, 62') Wegerle Wynalda (Stewart, 61') Australia v. England at Upton Park Schwarzer Neill Moore Popovic (Vidmar, 72') Lazaridis Emerton Okon (Muscat, 87') Skoko (Bresciano 45') Chipperfield (Grella 76') Viduka (Sterjovski 85') Kewell (Aloisi 56') Kalac & Tiatto on the bench I would take the Australians over the Americans anyday. However, maybe the US loss is not seen as being as humiliating because the England squad of 93 was not as good (at least on paper) as the one from last night: England v. USA at Foxboro Woods Dixon Pallister Palmer (Walker, 61') Dorigo Batty Ince Clough Sharpe Ferdinand (Wright, 35') Barnes Congratulations to Australia, still. kevin + http://tullamarine.org
The most embarrassingdefeat ever suffered by England would be the 6-3 humiliation against Hungary in 1953. On any other day England would have hammered the USA - it was just one of those results that make football the game it is. The defeat against Hungary was nothing less than humiliation - England had never lost a home game against a team from outside the British Isles, and Hungary destroyed them on the day - the scoreline flattered England and 10-3 would not have been unrepresentative of the game. The England team contained several all-time greats, including Billy Wirht, Stanley Matthews, and Stan Mortensen. To make matters worse, Hungary beat England 7-1 in Budapest 6 months later (with England fielding Wright, Roger Byrne and Tom FInney amongst others). The defeat to USA was a shock, but nowhere near the same as the footballing lesson given twice by Puskas and co.
England of '93 were ************, end of story. England of '03 were ************ last night but on another day, who knows?
All I can say is that Tony Meola had maybe the greatest game a goalkeeper ever had in that one. I said maybe.
This correct. Keller was much better. Meola was excellent, but Ian Wright was crap. Keller was spectacular.
The defeat against Hungary changed soccer history. Back then, England was considered imortals in soccer. No one dreamed to beat England. It was not a lucky win..... Hungary outclassed the English. I did not think England ever recovered from the defeat. With the exception of 1966 WC, England was never considered to be the force they were before the two matchwes against Hungary. As for Australia 2003 and USA 1993, I did not see either match. I thought the USA match was the bigger shock. Some of the Aussies are household names in England. Viduka is probably the top three English-based players on field that day. For USA 1993, the English probably only heard of Harkes and Wegerle before the match. Harkes in 1993 was nowhere near Kewell and Viduka in 2003. Wegerle was probably bigger than the two Australians. Lapper, Meola, Jones, Lalas, Doyle, and Armstrong had no professional experiences in club soccer in 1993. Agoos's pro experiences was a few stints in Germany. Clavijo was an indoor player with limited professional experiences outdoor. Besides Harkes and Wegerle, the real professional players were Ramos(only 2nd Divison in Spain), Wynalda, Dooley and Stewart.
I find this hard to believe. Bigger than Kewell or Viduka? Both of these players are fantastic, and Wegerle may have been good, but better than these two?
Yep. In his pre-USMNT days, Wegerle was rated as the striker with the best dribbling skill in England. Some said he was the best striker in EPL. Unfortunately, his form lasted for one or two season when he was in QPR. By the time he played for Blackburn Rover, he was no good.... his international career also started about the same time. Viduka is probably one of the top 8 attackers in EPL, but he is nowhere near the #1. Wegerle was at one point.... rated the #1 striker.
There is no question that there is a much larger gap between England '93 - USA '93 and England '03 - Australia '03. The English just love hyperbole. When they are down they are absolutely terrible and when they are up they are fucking brilliant world beaters. Who on the US team would have made an England squad? Wegerle would have been the closest and that's a huge stretch in my opinion. From Australia? Kewell would stroll on the current England team and Viduka and Emerton would probably make the squad.
Excape Goat said: The defeat against Hungary changed soccer history. Back then, England was considered imortals in soccer. No one dreamed to beat England. true, this was a huge defeat for England and yes they were considered great and the inventors of the game and all that but... up to that point the English had only ventured off their island once to play in a world cup (that being their ignominious loss to US in the 1950 world cup in brazil) hey, maybe(probably?I don't know) they were constantly kicking rear in euro competitions all that time but to skip out on 3 of the first 4 world cups(and two of them were played in France and Italy) is pretty lame-o for a team that considers themsleves to be the best anyways, here's to english losses then, now and in the future
England was not a founding members of FIFA.... I did not live through that era so I do not know exactly the opinions at the time. England considerd themselves bigger than FIFA. So they did not play in the early World Cup Finals. And yes... they did not venture outside of England for the same reason. Part of the reason why people scared of England was because England seldom played international football. They were probably overrated. Hungary destroyed that myth.... except for a brief moment in 1966, England never regained that respect.
England had played outside Britain on numerous occasions prior to the 50s, but always friendlies, and they lost many of those friendly games too, but no non-British side had ever beaten England at home up until then. There were no European competitions back then. They didn't start until the late 50s. It might seem "lame-o" to not bother with the world cup in the early years, but how seriously does the US take the Basketball and Hockey world championships? Is the attitude there arrogance, or just indifference?
But he was good for two to three years. He was a flop after that. In 1993, he happens to be good.... his best years were 1991 or 1992. Basically, no striker in English football at that point had his dribbing skills.
Richard L said: "but how seriously does the US take the Basketball and Hockey world championships? Is the attitude there arrogance, or just indifference?" IMHO, for a long time indifference (esp. basketball), but now, with the recent BIG-TIME embaressment at the recent b-ball world championships (in Indiananopolis--home court advantage even) i'd say that, for basketball's sake at least, attention is being taken, still.. nothing pisses me off more than the constant referall to virtually all American sports championships as "World Championships"-- this has been going on for seemingly since the professional sporting scene came to preeminance in America-- which does indicate a large degree of arrogance hey, i root against the usa basketball team, call me un-american, whatever-- the us sporting scene has a lot of things going on that i don't like did i get off topic?