Re: Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[Diggers]

First topic message reminder :

I don't mind Paul Walsh at all, there are at least another 5 on the Sky Soccer Saturday that are way worse. Thompson is annoying , Nicolas just as bad, Merson is funny in an are you simple kind of way. George Best used to be worst of the lot.
I always found Graham Taylor's commentary annoying , that was his voice more than anything though.
In athletics Colin Jackson is very poor as is Denise Lewis.

[navyblueshorts]

...Noone puts him in zidnae, messis or figos league

Serious, objective people don't. Obviously not too many of them in our media.

[super_realist]

If you look at Englands finishes in major events over the past 20 years I think the average puts us in the top 10 teams in the world comfortably. If the Swedes are better than that...which I dont think they are...then fair play to them.
And how often have England gone out in open play ? Not very often. The fact is if we could take penalties the finsihes in major tournaments owuld be very impressive, regardless of whether the football was.

If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle.

England are consistently somewhere between a top 12-16 team in the world. Hardly earth shattering.

[navyblueshorts]

If you look at Englands finishes in major events over the past 20 years I think the average puts us in the top 10 teams in the world comfortably. If the Swedes are better than that...which I dont think they are...then fair play to them.
And how often have England gone out in open play ? Not very often. The fact is if we could take penalties the finsihes in major tournaments owuld be very impressive, regardless of whether the football was.

I think those sort of stats probably say exactly what England is as a football team - decent but not likely to win anything big. The fact they're bigged up almost every time is exactly the same sort of nonsense that makes Beckham out to be (in this country at least) the best thing since sliced bread. Talking of penalties, for a man so good at dead ball stuff Beckham was absolute scheiss at taking a penalty.

[mystiroakey]

SR take tabloids with a pinch of salt- The scottish rugby teams goal is to win the 2015 world cup!!!

lol

[Diggers]

...Noone puts him in zidnae, messis or figos league

Serious, objective people don't. Obviously not too many of them in our media.

Serious objective people also dont rate him as only being able to deliver a dead ball. You do know he has been playing since he was 19 dont you, not just for the past 5 years ? To say he cant tackle is a joke, the amount of work he did for his teams defence getting up and down a pitch and putting in scores of assists and goals at the other end is why managers have loved him and why he has won a lot of medals.

[navyblueshorts]

SR take tabloids with a pinch of salt- The scottish rugby teams goal is to win the 2015 world cup!!!

lol

Now THAT is funny .

[Diggers]

If you look at Englands finishes in major events over the past 20 years I think the average puts us in the top 10 teams in the world comfortably. If the Swedes are better than that...which I dont think they are...then fair play to them.
And how often have England gone out in open play ? Not very often. The fact is if we could take penalties the finsihes in major tournaments owuld be very impressive, regardless of whether the football was.

If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle.

England are consistently somewhere between a top 12-16 team in the world. Hardly earth shattering.

But they are not 12-16 because you have to judge them by where they finish in events and how often they qualify. That makes them easily top 10. You cant have it both ways.

[mystiroakey]

Diggers your right. Most objectove people rate beckham for his work rate (on and off the pitch)and his love of the game over being a one trick poney.

The media may big teams or players up. But it doesnt mean they or we buy in to it- Its to grab headlines. All medias are guilty of that not just the english

[navyblueshorts]

Give them a few more years Digs and they'll be genuinely 12-16 ranked....

[navyblueshorts]

Diggers your right. Most objectove people rate beckham for his work rate (on and off the pitch)and his love of the game over being a one trick poney.

The media may big teams or players up. But it doesnt mean they or we buy in to it- Its to grab headlines. All medias are guilty of that not just the english

Now that I can agree with .

[navyblueshorts]

Still doesn't mean he gets to play at the Olympics though!

[super_realist]

I work with a lot of foreign people and I asked them how England and their players are rated, the answer is not very highly, so it must just be our media that blows smoke up their bottoms, bit like the old firm, they like to think they are bigger and better than they actually are.

[super_realist]

If you look at Englands finishes in major events over the past 20 years I think the average puts us in the top 10 teams in the world comfortably. If the Swedes are better than that...which I dont think they are...then fair play to them.
And how often have England gone out in open play ? Not very often. The fact is if we could take penalties the finsihes in major tournaments owuld be very impressive, regardless of whether the football was.

If your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle.

England are consistently somewhere between a top 12-16 team in the world. Hardly earth shattering.

But they are not 12-16 because you have to judge them by where they finish in events and how often they qualify. That makes them easily top 10. You cant have it both ways.

Diggers, they usually qualify from a group of five or six knackers, and routinely fail at the QF or last 16 stages, or in the case of Euro 2006 not qualify at all, I'd put that around the 12 mark at best for an average.
For example, out in the Euros in the last 8, out in the last world cup at the last 16. No qualification for Euro 2006, not a great average.

[Diggers]

Again....who is saying England are a good side ? They got hammered in the press and by fans before and after the Euros, during them they got a bit of slack cut for some half OK performances. And thats after going home unbeaten in open play and winning the two lead up matches.
This myth that England get bigged up at home is exactly that. It doesnt alter the fact...and it is a fact...that England still manage to achieve good finishes in tournaments.

[mystiroakey]

I work with a lot of foreign people and I asked them how England and their players are rated, the answer is not very highly, so it must just be our media that blows smoke up their bottoms, bit like the old firm, they like to think they are bigger and better than they actually are.

Well there is a big difference- the english players do win stuff and compete at a high level(cl). The old firm are only massive in there little pond. there is no comparison

[navyblueshorts]

Again....who is saying England are a good side ? They got hammered in the press and by fans before and after the Euros, during them they got a bit of slack cut for some half OK performances. And thats after going home unbeaten in open play and winning the two lead up matches.
This myth that England get bigged up at home is exactly that. It doesnt alter the fact...and it is a fact...that England still manage to achieve good finishes in tournaments.

That's only this time Digs. Every other time in recent, living memory, England have been massively over-hyped. Even this time around, once they got out of the their group there was plenty of nonsense written and then, as several writers said, we were absolutely thrashed 0-0 by Italy.

[Diggers]

Yeah, well I remember you saying that you thought they would beat Italy, remember that little gem ?

[navyblueshorts]

I work with a lot of foreign people and I asked them how England and their players are rated, the answer is not very highly, so it must just be our media that blows smoke up their bottoms, bit like the old firm, they like to think they are bigger and better than they actually are.

Well there is a big difference- the english players do win stuff and compete at a high level(cl). The old firm are only massive in there little pond. there is no comparison

Well, that's true but you have to consider who's doing a lot of the work to enable these players to win things don't you. How many of these winning teams field, regularly, significant numbers of English players? I suppose ManU do sometimes (where's Mac when you, arguably, need him?) but one of England's (many) problems is this self-defeating buying of so much over-seas talent.

[navyblueshorts]

Yeah, well I remember you saying that you thought they would beat Italy, remember that little gem ?

I said that?

[Diggers]

Man City usually had 4-5 English starters last year. Chelsea have usually had the same number in their sides. Man Utd same again. Really only Arsenal that have had hardly any English in the past few years.
The Man Utd side of 99 had a lot English starters.

[Diggers]

Yeah, well I remember you saying that you thought they would beat Italy, remember that little gem ?

I said that?

Sorry Navy, was meant for Super.

[mystiroakey]

It doesnt really matter who or why NBS- the fact is they are competiting at that level so it is kind of understandable that a bit of smoke is blown up they asses. Its something we have to deal with and most of us do, we dont buy into it!!

Many english players get to CL final stages- infact i wouldnt be suprised if english players havent fielded the most players than any other nation from QF's up over the last 10 years!! So the argument that not many play is kinda pointless

[navyblueshorts]

You'd think more of the top English players might try and expand their football horizons abroad but I suppose the EPL offers too much money. Either that or the AC Milans/Reals/Barcas/etc think they're nowhere near good enough - maybe a combination.

[Diggers]

You'd think more of the top English players might try and expand their football horizons abroad but I suppose the EPL offers too much money. Either that or the AC Milans/Reals/Barcas/etc think they're nowhere near good enough - maybe a combination.

Though funnily enough they were quite happy to have Becks playing for them......

[mystiroakey]

the occasional player goes madrid, and i am sure they would go to barca if asked- but no one is good enough at passing anyway.

The PL is to big so no point blaming players for not going abroad. What we need to blame is grass roots. If we had loads of depth then we would have players in all leagues naturally

[navyblueshorts]

You'd think more of the top English players might try and expand their football horizons abroad but I suppose the EPL offers too much money. Either that or the AC Milans/Reals/Barcas/etc think they're nowhere near good enough - maybe a combination.

Though funnily enough they were quite happy to have Becks playing for them......

Oh sure and that had nothing to do with shirt sales etc and/or a feather in the cap of the president. That said, was quite impressed that he managed to reverse Capello's decision that he wasn't worth having around.

[Diggers]

Soi how does Beckham win with you ? He went abroad which you say you think players should and he was successful in the teams he was in. Sure he sold shirts but as you say he forced himself into being an important past of a winning side.
Why not give him some real credit for doing the things you want other English players to do ?

[mystiroakey]

"Why not give him some real credit for doing the things you want other English players to do ?"

I dont think that can be argued. Good point

[navyblueshorts]

Ah, but I do give him credit Digs; over-coming Capello's initial feeling about his worth to Real was probably one of his high points. I think he dealt with the ridiculous bile following his '98 World Cup sending off extremely well. There's a lot to like about Beckham but it's too interwoven with media guff, his non-smiling wife etc etc. What I find hard to stomach is the over-hyping of his status as if he's one of the greatest ever. He isn't but he is/has been a very, very good player.

[Diggers]

Yes....but as we keep saying where are the examples of being overhyped like that ? Ive never seen them and Im an avid reader of sports.
He is called one of footballs biggest stars or names all the time...and that cant be denied.......but he doesnt get called a footballing great by anyone. Doesnt mean he still wasnt very good.

[mystiroakey]

Its like england- we are a big footballing nation. Beckham is a massive footballing star. I dont think many buy in to England or beckham being the best

[super_realist]

In what way are England a big team?
Big teams win tournaments and regularly make finals amd semi's.
England are second rate.

[mystiroakey]

Didn't say big team

[super_realist]

Okay, in what way are England a big football nation?

Big support?, big coverage in newspapers? Big expectation? Big amount of over-rating?

[McLaren]

In answer to the beckham question; I don’t think he was overrated when there were real footballing stories about him. The sentimental stuff over the Olympics is hype but should not detract from the reality of his career.

He was a vital part of the treble side and provided many of the most pivotal assists during that period. He was probably easily the best right sided midfielder England had the period 1997 to 2006. At which point only age held him back. Beckham had the ability to also move in and play more centrally when needed, or just fleetingly to get on the ball. Just look at how out of his depth Milner looked when he tried to move into the field a little more.

He is a cut above the likes of gerrard and probably on par with lampard. I don’t think you hold down a pivotal role in a man utd shirt of you are not a “European class” player. He may not have had the flair but he understood how to be part of a team and what he could contribute. Something that can hold back even the most talented players.

[Tiler76]

Seems to me like both sides of this "debate" are actually pretty close. England and Beckham are over-hyped in my opinion, but it's mainly the media that do this. I think your average football fan recognises the reality of both. And as for the so-called "golden generation", another meaningless media-driven term which most of us realised a long time ago is complete rubbish. England have some good players (of which Beckham WAS one), and go into every tournament they qualify for with a chance of success, as do Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, etc.

As for the Beckham-not-in-Team-GB fiasco, this is entirely driven by the media. As far as I can see, most of us never expected him to get picked in the first place. To be honest, I'm more surprised at the media backlash against Stuart Pearce on this. I thought he was trying to pick the best 18 players available to play?

[mystiroakey]

Sr in many ways. And many positive as well

[mystiroakey]

Tiller I didn't think he would get picked. But I think what has added to the hype is the 3 old players that were picked.. that doesnt add up anyway

[super_realist]

How annoying is Virginia Wade?

Nice pins on these birds on centre court right now though.


Tiler, England enter a tournament which a chance commensurate with me crapping in the queens handbag.

[Tiler76]

I think picking ONLY 3 over-age players is actually pretty difficult. Where do you start? What positions?

I guess if it were me I'd pick the other 15 first and see which positions I needed more cover. But whatever you think of Beckham, his career's on the wind-down, and any pick would be for sentiment only. Maybe he deserves that, maybe he doesn't but it would be pretty damning on our philosophy for Olympic football.

As for Bellamy, well I don't get that at all. Not for me!!

[Doon the Water]

Late to this ..Beckham was England's last world class player.

They should have picked him for the Olympics team. It is only a showboat event, and Pearce saying he was taking it as a serious competition was quite funny.

[mystiroakey]

bellamy giggs and richards- thast my argument- beckham could probally add to the team more.

If it was for purely footballing reasons i like your idea tiyler(pick the 3 we need after the initial selection)- which actually could have been pearces idea.

but i may have gone the other way and picked the 3 older best first.

I suppose in an ideal world it would have included euro players- and it would have been rooney, terry and cole.

but i dont think that was a possibility.

so how about rio ferdinand, joe cole and scholes

[super_realist]

Why pick any hasbeens at all?
Pearce could easily pick 18 under 23's.

Jordan Rhodes for instance.

[mystiroakey]

yep good point- dont even bother with any of em

[Tiler76]

I think we'd do better with a similar policy for the senior squad as well....

[mystiroakey]

yep i agree - just look long term with pressure to even qualify

[mystiroakey]

anyone see that oylimpic advert on bbc- its pretty awesome!!

[Tiler76]

Mysti - I like Beckham and personally would have had more interest in the team if he were in it, but I'm not convinced he'd add any more to the team than those selected.

However, taking Giggs and Bellamy does seem a little like "give the Welsh lads a go because they haven't had a chance at a major tournament", so it does smack of double standards.

Whoever Pearce picked he would have got grief for, but for me, not picking Beckham was not a surprise.

Like your trio of Rio/Joe/Scholes though.

[mystiroakey]

those are possibly 3 of englands best technicians.

I would have much prefered us gone with them and a load of youngsters at the euros and lost all three games but tried to pass the ball about!!!

thats how to move forward - not just set up to not conceade

[Tiler76]

I think Roy's got it about right so far, we can't pass, therefore try not to concede and nick a goal.

We have to play to our strengths, and passing is not one of them!

Does anyone really give a monkey's about soccer at the Olympics anyway?

[Sponsored content]