Not sure if anyone has raised this before but how well do people think England would have done in the first pre World War II World Cups had they entered? In late 1934 they beat current World Champions Italy 3-2 at Highbury and seemed rather arrogantly to beleive they were the best team in the world despite it being a home game and Italy played most of the game with ten mean after Monti broke his leg. Interestingly earlier that season they had lost to two European powerhouses in both Hungary, who were quarter finalists and eventual finalists Czechoslovakia, in Vienna and Prague respectively. Re 1938 England had been in pretty good form leading up to it despite losing to a decent Dwiss team so may have had a better chance maybe but were they stronger than Italy, Hungary, Brazil etc... or possibley have been a last four showing? As for 1930, who knows how they would have faired in Uruguay but I think had a pretty strong team and the rest of the competition was generally weaker but in South America I would not have seen them beating Argentina or Uruguay to get into the final. Just wondered peoples thoughts.
In 1929, Spain was the first continental side to beat England A-team. In 1930, Germany was close (7 minutes) to defeat them in Berlin. Also an arguably weaker (than germans) side as France beat 5-2 to England in 1931.
I think it depends how the FA treated them. If the FA had taken the approach they did in 1950 (disinterested and uncomitted) then they'd have struggled. If it was taken seriously then I don't see why England wouldn't have been contenders to win each of those tournaments. I think as well that had the FA been an active member of FIFA at the time they'd have been an obvious choice to have hosted one of the three which would obviously have provided a major boost.
Yeah, I think that if England would hosted one of the first WCs, England would win. But in a non-british soil, the forces were very equal with the powerhouses.
I would work under the assumption the competition would be played where they were hosted and England would have there strongest team represented for these discussion. Re uncommitted and disinterested comment about the 1950 World Cup, what is the basis for this? The team certainly looked the strongest line up with the stars of Finney, Mortensen, Wright, Mannion all playing or maybe it was more do do with the preparation or attitudes maybe? They did lose to a strong Spanish side that made the last four and had they not had a disaster against USA they would have progressed, and from accounts I have read they had enough chances to win that game. Big shame for me in the 1950 World Cup was the fast becoming one of the most exciting teams on the planet in Hungary opted out and Sweden despite reaching the last four missed the Gre-No-Li trio who had gone to Milan and were therefore barred.
Without being too egotistical, from my book: "Defending champions Italy should theoretically have led the European charge, but their team had been devastated by the effects of the Superga disaster of 1949 which had seen the entire Torino squad killed in an air crash. The club had formed the basis of the national team having dominated Italian football throughout the last decade. Against Hungary in 1947 Torino had provided 10 out of the 11 starting players for the Italians and in the shape of Valentino Mazzola and Ezio Loik had two of the best inside-forwards of the era. In their absence, Ferruccio Novo, the President of Torino who had fortunately not been on the plane that crashed at Superga and took charge of the delegation for the trip to Brazil, had been forced to assemble a squad lacking the experience for this level of competition. They certainly weren’t helped in their preparations by the arduous nature of their journey. Understandably nervous about flying to the Americas, they opted to travel by boat, a long and cramped voyage which did their training no good. It was no wonder that little was expected of Italy. The same could not be said of England, competing in the World Cup for the first time. They had won nine matches in a row in preparation for the tournament and as such had good reason to be confident entering the tournament. Since the war England had generally been in excellent form with a 4-0 victory in Turin in 1948 (humbling the reigning World Champions prior to the Superga disaster) ranking among the finest performances the national side had ever enjoyed. Sadly preparations for the tournament were haphazard at best. As strange as it sounds now, the World Cup was yet to be established, in English eyes at least, as a competition of genuine importance. That outlook was reflected in the fact that the FA had arranged a goodwill tour of Canada and allowed Stanley Matthews, the fabled right-winger, to travel as a “football ambassador”, deciding that he could join up with the World Cup party in Brazil if he so desired. At the same time Manchester United were on a tour of the USA themselves and had requested that the FA didn’t call up any of their players so as not to interfere with their plans! The farcical nature of the preparations extended to the choice of hotel, with England staying at a venue on the Copacabana beach. While it might have been perfect for tourists, the hustle and bustle was ill-suited to the needs of the England squad, looking to prepare for the rigours of tournament football. Far from the least of their problems was the food. After a number of players had been taken ill, the rest of the party resorted to eating bananas as a suitably safe alternative. Asked by a journalist if bananas were the ideal food to prepare for a match, Stanley Mortensen joked: “Probably not, but you should see us climb the trees!” On the field the loss of centre-back Neil Franklin was a genuine blow. Considered by many to have been the greatest central defender that England ever produced, Franklin had joined the renegade league of Colombia earlier in the year in search of his fortune. Outside FIFA, the Colombians were able to pay vast sums, far outstripping the modest amounts earned even by the best players under the domestic maximum wage system. Franklin had been a giant for his country, immaculate under pressure and had played in 27 consecutive internationals after the war. In his absence England simply didn’t have an obvious replacement. Indeed the departure of some key figures, such as goalkeeper Frank Swift and centre-forward, Tommy Lawton, meant that England probably weren’t the side they had been a couple of years earlier. They did though retain a number of outstanding figures. Matthews remained a winger of incomparable quality, noted for the brilliance of his dribbling and the famed body-swerve which continued to deceive opponents at the age of 35. On the other flank was his friendly rival, Tom Finney, arguably the most complete and versatile attacker that ever wore the three lions. If those two could supply the ammunition then England were hardly short of forwards to convert them given the continued presence of Wilf Mannion, known as the “golden boy”, Newcastle United striker Jackie Milburn, and the outstanding Mortensen."
Slightly off topic but linked, interested to think what people thought Stanley Matthews best seasons for England were, looks like he was pretty big player in the 37-38 season and scored a hat trick versus Czechoslovakia, a goal against Wales and and other goal away in the famous defeat of Germany and perhaps the following 1938-39 season too. He generally created more assist than he did score goals so assume (source needed) he may have had a hand in a few over this period. Looks like his next best years were part of the England team that were a real force ten years later in the 46-47 & 47-48 seasons, with the team that boasted the attacking prowess of Mortensen, Lawton, Mannion and Finney. Any thoughts?
Contender for sure, but the pre WWII cups (especially the 1st one) were a mess anyway with so many nations withdrawing, 'stealing' players or sending subpar squads. Though they peaked somewhere in the mid/late-20s Scotland would have been quite decent too.
They would have needed to have had a coherent selection policy though. They had a 24 match spell between 1930 and 1936 where they handed out 67 international debuts. In only 2 of those games did they not have someone making his first appearance. 25 of them only won a single cap and 37 of them 3 or fewer.
Mannion was in decline at that point. He was coming of his worst season for Middlesbrough, and the year before had missed a significant part of the season in a pay dispute. His peak was the immediate post war years, and 1946 (had it happened) may have been England's best theoretical shot at it. They still had Carter, Lawton and Swift at that point. Add in Franklin and peak Mannion with Matthews and Finney and it was arguably England's best ever side.
Any specific reason why they rotated players so much? It was the time when Scotland started to play outside the British Isles, maybe they wanted to avoid that the same players have to travel all the time just for not-so-important friendlies? The team was assembled by a selection committee back then, maybe just simple politics within the association.
Yep, I agree re 1946, had there been a tournament then there would have been Matthews, Lawton, Mannion, a young Finney leading the line, pretty impressive. If there had been a 1942 version Argentina would have taking some beating however with La Maquina group in the team. Hard to gauge how European teams would have got on as not much going on outside the occupied countries who still maintained pretty much full leagues, Czechoslovakia being an example, would have been good to see Bican there !!!
Scotland hosting a World Cup in the 1930s or 1950s is not out of the question, I think, if they had been members of the FIFA (given the size of the stadiums). That would mean a major host advantage and very often we have seen a big boost happening along all (other) dimensions too. It's also 'only' since the 1962 World Cup in Chile that those events go to major countries with at least 30 million people (Chile, England, Mexico, West Germany, Argentina, Spain, Italy, USA, France, Japan/South Korea, South Africa, Brazil).
Looking at the results of the Central European Championships in the 1930's it is pretty even between the likes Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia an Austria. I would think in 1934 and 1938 they would be in with similar chances to England if the games were on neutral soil and so semis or possible final is not far off. I do think that away as stated away in South America Uruguay and Argentina not be stopped from reaching the final.
England XI v Scotland at Wembley, 5 May 1930: Hibbs - Goodall, Blenkinsop - Strange, Webster, Marsden - Crooks, Jack, Watson, Bradford, Rimmer. Result: 5-2. The same eleven drew 3-3 with Germany in Berlin on 10 May. Four days later England drew 0-0 with Austria in Vienna, making one change: Cowan of Manchester City at left-half in place of Marsden. v Scotland at Wembley, 14 April 1934: Moss - Cooper, Hapgood - Stoker, Hart, Copping - Crooks, Carter, Bowers, Bastin, Brook. Result: 3-0. England made two changes against Hungary in Budapest on 10 May and lost 1-2. Burrows and Tilson replaced Copping and Bowers. On 14 May against Czechoslovakia in Prague, Gardner and Beresford replaced Burrows and Carter. England lost by the same scoreline. For the infamous Battle of Highbury in November against world champions Italy, England picked 7 Arsenal players on their home ground. Male came in at right-back, Copping returned at left-half, and Bowden and Drake appeared in the forward line. Copping and Drake were notorious hard men and chosen as such. Drake broke the combative Monti's foot in the opening minutes, reducing the Italians to ten men. Further changes were Britton at right-half and Stanley Matthews on the right wing. Result: 3-2. v Scotland at Wembley, 9 April 1938: Woodley - Sproston, Hapgood - Willingham, Cullis, Copping - Matthews, Hall, Fenton, Stephenson, Bastin. Result 0-1. Several changes were made for a European tour a month later, which produced victories over Germany and France and a defeat against Switzerland. The following played all three games: Woodley, Sproston, Hapgood, Willingham, Young, Matthews, Broome, Goulden, Bastin.
Interesting thread. One is inclined to believe that Uruguay would have won at home in 1930, no matter who else turned up. Although a shade past their best, they had a settled side of proven winners who were accustomed to tournament football. England would have been contenders in 1934. They could match the Italians physically and did not lose an international game to Italy until 1973. However, Austrian coach Hugo Meisl believed that England would not have reached the semi-finals. England and Scotland were outside FIFA at this stage, but were still invited to participate with all expenses paid. The decision to decline was political. When England played Italy in Rome in May 1933, it was the British government's decision to send Herbert Chapman along as unofficial "adviser". The Foreign Office stressed to the FA the importance of a good result, and the story was leaked to the press, who were critical of government interference. FA Secretary Sir Frederick Wall also made the trip and reported back that Mussolini was bound to use the World Cup for political purposes. Wall had been a key figure in the resignations from FIFA during the 1920s. After being spurned again in 1938, FIFA even offered to accomodate an all-British team. Neither the English or Scottish football authorities were confident of success on the field (which says something) and advised the Foreign Office accordingly. With war looming, the British government did not want to risk a blow to national morale. England's best chance would have been in 1946, or 1948 had the World Cup rather than the Olympics been held in London. The fine side forged with the discipline of wartime had broken up by 1950. It is worth bearing in mind though that six of the first seven World Cups were won by Latin teams, as were the first eleven European Cups.
Imagine if the "Golden Generation" never got to play International tournaments due to politics. People would think they'd easily win because they have so many world-class players at the peak of their power. To be fair, managers count for a lot today. Did they count as much in the 1930s?
The first fully accountable England manager was Alf Ramsey in the 1960s. Before him, the only one man who had actually picked the team himself was FA secretary Stanley Rous for wartime friendlies. During the 1930s and beyond the senior players usually decided the tactics. There were exceptions. Vittorio Pozzo (Italy) and Hugo Meisl (Austria) were proper managers and very good ones. Pozzo was an admirer of English football, not least the physical side, and had no complaints when his team lost The Battle of Highbury in 1934. Pozzo and Meisl befriended the like-minded Herbert Chapman and the three of them used to meet up in a Vienna coffee house to talk football. All three were ahead of their time in that they knew how to win games through analysis and innovation. In a less politically-charged decade, and with Chapman living longer, it would be easy to see him taking England to a World Cup and doing well. Irishman Jimmy Hogan, a brilliant coach and scout, did offer his services to England in the 1930s. But he had never been forgiven for working in the old German and Austro-Hungarian empires while they were at war with Britain.
1930 Hibbs Strange Goodall Blenkinsop Hapgood Webster D.Jack B.Walker Crooks Dean Rimmer 1934 Hibbs Creswell male Blenkinsop Hapgood E.Hart Carter Bastin Matthews Dean Brook 1938 Swift Male Proston Mercer Hapgood Cullis Carter Bastin Matthews Lawton Brook