|
|
Post by stewarty5 on Jun 12, 2016 6:48:06 GMT -5
So much for 2 0 swiss Albania down to 10 men You were saying!?  did u expect an avalanche of goals 2nd half!? Sure did the Albanians nearly pulled it of |
|
|
|
Post by BillySastard976 on Jun 12, 2016 6:54:01 GMT -5
I think the english squad has the same problem the spanish squad had a few years ago. The players are good, but they need to go out of England, to know another types of football, making the english football evolve. In Spain we had the same problems, when spanish players started playing abroad in the late 90's (and F.C. Barcelona hired Cruyff as coach - key fact), the spanish football started to improve a lot, and there you have the outcome, two euros and one world cup in the last 8 years. I think there is more to it than that, but I also do believe this is part of the problem. If I'm not mistaken, England is the only team that has 0 players playing abroad. N. Ireland does not have any outside the brittish isles and Ireland only has 2 playing in us. Thing is though this is not entierly a English thing. It's brittish. Only the mega stars leave. Go figure... It's fun to read about how unlucky they are (england) year after year when in fact it's probably more about the lack of talent. They've had among the best players in the world according to them selves and they tried hiring the best managers at the time in the world yet they never win and managers are to blame.... Take the glasses off ppl. So how many did I piss off right there?  They'll probably win now because of this There is talent,that is the frustration England fans have always had. Managers stick far too long with players that don't produce,game after game. Which 'top' managers have England had? The last one I remember is Venables,who really was unlucky in 96. Hoddle may have done well with more time but since then,sheer dross. We don't have a Bobby Charlton or Bobby Moore but we do have talent - they just don't get a chance! A great player like Peter Beardsley was only used by Robson in 86 when we were in dire straits - if a manager can't recognise talent like that then we have no chance! Rashford is going to be great - his young mate at Man U should be in the squad too. No doubt Rashford will be lucky to get 20 mins on the pitch. He doesn't need to go abroad to develop. |
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Jun 12, 2016 7:11:44 GMT -5
I think there is more to it than that, but I also do believe this is part of the problem. If I'm not mistaken, England is the only team that has 0 players playing abroad. N. Ireland does not have any outside the brittish isles and Ireland only has 2 playing in us. Thing is though this is not entierly a English thing. It's brittish. Only the mega stars leave. Go figure... It's fun to read about how unlucky they are (england) year after year when in fact it's probably more about the lack of talent. They've had among the best players in the world according to them selves and they tried hiring the best managers at the time in the world yet they never win and managers are to blame.... Take the glasses off ppl. So how many did I piss off right there? They'll probably win now because of this There is talent,that is the frustration England fans have always had. Managers stick far too long with players that don't produce,game after game. Which 'top' managers have England had? The last one I remember is Venables,who really was unlucky in 96. Hoddle may have done well with more time but since then,sheer dross. We don't have a Bobby Charlton or Bobby Moore but we do have talent - they just don't get a chance! A great player like Peter Beardsley was only used by Robson in 86 when we were in dire straits - if a manager can't recognise talent like that then we have no chance! Rashford is going to be great - his young mate at Man U should be in the squad too. No doubt Rashford will be lucky to get 20 mins on the pitch. He doesn't need to go abroad to develop. I see what you are saying and I do think you are correct when stating that a manager who can't recognize talent would be a problem. I just don't think that talent is as good as you do. Two things that I react to when it comes to this is that hodgeson has the youngest squad in the euros I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong and apart from perhaps rooney who had a decent outing last night and Cahill who I thought was good there was a lot of young talent on the pitch. I think screaming for a late bloomer such as Vardy who's track record is extremely limited is just odd to me especially taking this last post into consideration. Milner came on as a sub, but he is usually solid defensively and he came on in a situation where England was leading 1-0 and started to let Russia back in the game. That substitution with his routine made all the sense in the world to me at least. Both Ericsson and Capello was considered among the best managers in the world when they were appointed. To claim they were useless is laughable. Ericsson for one did well with what he had imo. |
|
|
|
Post by BillySastard976 on Jun 12, 2016 7:26:22 GMT -5
You must be joking - Ericsson was hopeless,we were extremely negative under him and lost games a good manager would have won.Look at the record of both of them with England,bearing in mind that getting out of groups then capitualating is nothing to be proud of.
Vardy is terrific,regardless of age - the fact he was almost never seen in top flight football speaks volumes about the lack of quality amongst scouts in UK. It happens,players get missed - Waddle and Beardsley were relatively late to top flight football too.
I don't care if a player is 20 or 40. Vardy is clearly a top class finisher with real pace - I don't need anyone to tell me his experience is 'limited' because it doesn't matter. Born goalscorers score goals!
Milner is a journeyman who was partly at fault for the goal - not his fault,he shouldn't be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildrover on Jun 12, 2016 7:28:40 GMT -5
There is talent,that is the frustration England fans have always had. Managers stick far too long with players that don't produce,game after game. Which 'top' managers have England had? The last one I remember is Venables,who really was unlucky in 96. Hoddle may have done well with more time but since then,sheer dross. We don't have a Bobby Charlton or Bobby Moore but we do have talent - they just don't get a chance! A great player like Peter Beardsley was only used by Robson in 86 when we were in dire straits - if a manager can't recognise talent like that then we have no chance! Rashford is going to be great - his young mate at Man U should be in the squad too. No doubt Rashford will be lucky to get 20 mins on the pitch. He doesn't need to go abroad to develop. I see what you are saying and I do think you are correct when stating that a manager who can't recognize talent would be a problem. I just don't think that talent is as good as you do. Two things that I react to when it comes to this is that hodgeson has the youngest squad in the euros I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong and apart from perhaps rooney who had a decent outing last night and Cahill who I thought was good there was a lot of young talent on the pitch. I think screaming for a late bloomer such as Vardy who's track record is extremely limited is just odd to me especially taking this last post into consideration. Milner came on as a sub, but he is usually solid defensively and he came on in a situation where England was leading 1-0 and started to let Russia back in the game. That substitution with his routine made all the sense in the world to me at least. Both Ericsson and Capello was considered among the best managers in the world when they were appointed. To claim they were useless is laughable. Ericsson for one did well with what he had imo. As an outsider lookin in, I thought Ericsson done a good job with England.. In WC 02 v Brazil a fluke goal knocked them out in the QF, & in 04 & 06 at Euro & WC pens again came back to bite them in the QF but I suppose that's Ericsson's fault too.. he didn't hold circle long enough Now Capello is a different story.. I can see why he would get criticised.. Tried to implement an Italian style game on England.. Needless to say.. Didn't work.. |
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Jun 12, 2016 7:32:55 GMT -5
I see what you are saying and I do think you are correct when stating that a manager who can't recognize talent would be a problem. I just don't think that talent is as good as you do. Two things that I react to when it comes to this is that hodgeson has the youngest squad in the euros I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong and apart from perhaps rooney who had a decent outing last night and Cahill who I thought was good there was a lot of young talent on the pitch. I think screaming for a late bloomer such as Vardy who's track record is extremely limited is just odd to me especially taking this last post into consideration. Milner came on as a sub, but he is usually solid defensively and he came on in a situation where England was leading 1-0 and started to let Russia back in the game. That substitution with his routine made all the sense in the world to me at least. Both Ericsson and Capello was considered among the best managers in the world when they were appointed. To claim they were useless is laughable. Ericsson for one did well with what he had imo. As an outsider lookin in, I thought Ericsson done a good job with England.. In WC 02 v Brazil a fluke goal knocked them out in the QF, & in 04 & 06 at Euro & WC pens again came back to bite them in the QF but I suppose that's Ericsson's fault too.. he didn't hold circle long enough Now Capello is a different story.. I can see why he would get criticised.. Tried to implement an Italian style game on England.. Needless to say.. Didn't work.. II would agree with this. I mentioned Capello as he was considered one of the best when appointed. |
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Jun 12, 2016 7:38:22 GMT -5
You must be joking - Ericsson was hopeless,we were extremely negative under him and lost games a good manager would have won.Look at the record of both of them with England,bearing in mind that getting out of groups then capitualating is nothing to be proud of. Vardy is terrific,regardless of age - the fact he was almost never seen in top flight football speaks volumes about the lack of quality amongst scouts in UK. It happens,players get missed - Waddle and Beardsley were relatively late to top flight football too. I don't care if a player is 20 or 40. Vardy is clearly a top class finisher with real pace - I don't need anyone to tell me his experience is 'limited' because it doesn't matter. Born goalscorers score goals! Milner is a journeyman who was partly at fault for the goal - not his fault,he shouldn't be there. No I'm definetly not joking regarding Ericsson. I fail to see how the tournament exits are his fault. I blame brittish media more than him. We clearly disagree here and to be fair it really doesn't matter to me. Unless britts take their goggles off and realize they need to change and not just use their pieces differently it's for the better for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by BillySastard976 on Jun 12, 2016 7:44:48 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me either.
I watched Ericsson putting Phil Neville on against Portugal when we were trying to win the game,or should have been - he puts on a defender?? This was a tactical decision,not an injury forced change. This at a time when we were really pressing for the win. Of course we lost and he was justifiably criticized.
We obviously have different ideas of what is good. For you,getting out of a group and losing meekly is good - for me it isn't. Ericsson had good players too,but he stifled them.
Hodgson seems afraid to really go for it,yet that is the one thing he would get no criticism for from the vast majority of fans! If he continues like he started and hasn't learned he has to ditch the likes of Sterling we have no chance at all.There is great talent sitting on that bench - the best we've had for a long time.
Had Ericsson been manager of Germany,with his results,how long would he have lasted?
They have no greater talent than we do,yet look at what they do with it! No way would they put up with an Ericsson side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildrover on Jun 12, 2016 12:19:03 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me either. I watched Ericsson putting Phil Neville on against Portugal when we were trying to win the game,or should have been - he puts on a defender?? This was a tactical decision,not an injury forced change. This at a time when we were really pressing for the win. Of course we lost and he was justifiably criticized. We obviously have different ideas of what is good. For you,getting out of a group and losing meekly is good - for me it isn't. Ericsson had good players too,but he stifled them. Hodgson seems afraid to really go for it,yet that is the one thing he would get no criticism for from the vast majority of fans! If he continues like he started and hasn't learned he has to ditch the likes of Sterling we have no chance at all.There is great talent sitting on that bench - the best we've had for a long time. Had Ericsson been manager of Germany,with his results,how long would he have lasted? They have no greater talent than we do,yet look at what they do with it! No way would they put up with an Ericsson side. It's clear u & and I ain't goin to agree much but I do find your analysis of England managers quite strange.. Venables was very unlucky but Eriksson wasnt!? England had a very talented team @ Euro 96 & on home soil they ultimately didn't get the job done.. If Ronaldinho wouldn't have scored that quite fortunate goal v England in 2002 & England did progress let's say there's a good chance England mite well have bein world champions that year... If they would have reached the final they would have being confident havin disposed infamously of Germany in Munich 5-1 in qualifying.. Its all ifs n buts, however : luck, whether its good or bad plays a huge part in the jigsaw for any manager trying to be successful.. A Penalty shootout loss cost Eriksson on 2 QF occasions at major comps, penalty's are all about pot luck really but its clear Englands penalty shoot record has taken a toll mentally on several squads as is only natural given their run in them.Eriksson has had generally a successful career in management.. That's all I've to say on the matter really..  |
|
|
|
Post by smurfblade88 on Jun 12, 2016 12:22:26 GMT -5
FWIW in my lifetime England havnt had a good manager apart from Capello and even he wasnt suited to England.
|
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Jun 12, 2016 12:34:37 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me either. I watched Ericsson putting Phil Neville on against Portugal when we were trying to win the game,or should have been - he puts on a defender?? This was a tactical decision,not an injury forced change. This at a time when we were really pressing for the win. Of course we lost and he was justifiably criticized. We obviously have different ideas of what is good. For you,getting out of a group and losing meekly is good - for me it isn't. Ericsson had good players too,but he stifled them. Hodgson seems afraid to really go for it,yet that is the one thing he would get no criticism for from the vast majority of fans! If he continues like he started and hasn't learned he has to ditch the likes of Sterling we have no chance at all.There is great talent sitting on that bench - the best we've had for a long time. Had Ericsson been manager of Germany,with his results,how long would he have lasted? They have no greater talent than we do,yet look at what they do with it! No way would they put up with an Ericsson side. Do you mean Germany is only a bit more talented team than England? I think it's quite an adventurous affirmation. For sure England has some solid talent, but IMO they are miles away from Germany. In this euro Germany is way ahead of any other team in terms of talent. Maybe Spain and Croatia could be close (in terms of pure talent, not overall quality as a team) but way behind the germans. Compared man by man both rosters are very unbalanced. But there is something I agree. Ericsson is one of those coaches that do silly things. They want to be renowned as innovators instead of winning trophys. |
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Jun 12, 2016 12:34:52 GMT -5
Lol... just typed an epic long reply on my tablet and the damn app crashed! I hate this thing!
What I wanted to say in summary, is that luck is a huge part of the game and it allows the underdog the chance to win. Wouldn't have it any other way! We have had both good and bad luck... the bad luck hurts more though! But we also make our own luck. Like Lampards disallowed goal against Germany. We lost to a much better team, we needed a lot ot luck on our side that day which sadly it wasn't. We shouldn't have even been on that side of the draw, we should have beaten USA. Another reason why the Russian goal strikes fear, to have a chance at a good run we need top spot. We make our own luck. But, Hodgson gambled, you have to. Russians never looked like scoring, being defence was the safest bet, the were lumping long ball after long ball. They picked out with a perfect cross and perfect header. Given that we weren't clinical Roy did the right thing. In hindsight maybe Vardy would have sealed the match but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I know I we don't have world class players or even 1 world class player. But poor Italy teams have made finals, so why can't we? Belief and history add a weight which we need to shift. I prey for a bit of fortune a bit of magic someone to step up. But if we happen to win the Euros it wouldn't be because we have the best players, it will be through making the best team and digging in.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyates on Jun 12, 2016 12:36:46 GMT -5
I don't blame any of our managers... ambition has always been ahead of talent as long as I remember!
Anyways! How do folk from other countries rate their chances?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrooola on Jun 12, 2016 12:41:14 GMT -5
Had Ericsson been manager of Germany,with his results,how long would he have lasted? They have no greater talent than we do,yet look at what they do with it! No way would they put up with an Ericsson side. Now this is exactly where you and I strongly disagree. Claiming Germany and England has similar level of skills and talent this year or recent rears is the same to me as claiming Sweden are equal in skill and talent to England. You may think Germany and England are equal, that's what's so awesome about opinions and I must say somewhat admire your patriotism. My opinion however is that you are wrong |
|
|
|
Post by BillySastard976 on Jun 12, 2016 12:41:44 GMT -5
Losing on penalties when we deserve to win,such as 90 and 96,that is one thing,but getting down to penalties due to mismanagement,with good players unable to express themselves,as in Ericsson's team,that is unacceptable.
Yes,Venables was unlucky - he had the team playing very well. Ericsson had them playing boringly defensive,reflecting his own character. Venables made the best of his players,Ericsson didn't.
I'll ask again - does crawling out of groups and losing,playing unattractive football,constitute success,or does playing well,as in 90 and 96,but losing (at a later stage) constitute more of a success? The answer is obvious.
He had good players! I'll also ask again - how long would Ericsson have lasted in the Germany job?
Why are they always in the mix for titles and we never are? More talent? I don't think so,in fact I'd say we have more talent. Better management/tactics? Undoubtedly yes!
|
|
did u expect an avalanche of goals 2nd half!? 
