Tuesday qualifiers

First topic message reminder :

Macedonia vs Scotland (7:30)
Wales vs Serbia (7:45)
Ukraine vs England (7:45)
Austria vs ROI (7:45)

As a welsh man i'm not holding out for too much against Serbia. We're without joniesta and williams so it means there's even more pressure on Ramsey to pull something out the bag again. Hopefully Coleman's team selection and tactics improve and we're more positive against Serbia. If we'd gone for it we would've won in Macedonia. Fingers crossed bale get's 15 mins at least.

Tough games for England and ROI, I expect England to get a point at least or maybe sneak a win.

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:Winless against teams not San Marino or Moldova

Top of the group by hook or by crook.

Italy drew with the USA at the world cup in 06 but won the tournament.

France came 2nd in the group drawing with switzerland and south korea but still reached the final.

Italy also beat Australia, Ukraine and Germany. France beat Spain, Brazil and Portugal.

We can't beat Montenegro, Ukraine or Poland

But the point was they looked poor in the group stages yet still won or reached the final.

England might look poor but if we win who cares.

Yeah...but we aren't winning unless we play minnows. Thats kind of the point.

You can only beat what is in front of you and we are top of our group unbeaten.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:Winless against teams not San Marino or Moldova

Top of the group by hook or by crook.

Italy drew with the USA at the world cup in 06 but won the tournament.

France came 2nd in the group drawing with switzerland and south korea but still reached the final.

Italy also beat Australia, Ukraine and Germany. France beat Spain, Brazil and Portugal.

We can't beat Montenegro, Ukraine or Poland

But the point was they looked poor in the group stages yet still won or reached the final.

England might look poor but if we win who cares.

Yeah...but we aren't winning unless we play minnows. Thats kind of the point.

You can only beat what is in front of you and we are top of our group unbeaten.

And we aren't beating whats in front of us unless its semi professional standard.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

GSC wrote:Winless against teams not San Marino or Moldova

Top of the group by hook or by crook.

Italy drew with the USA at the world cup in 06 but won the tournament.

France came 2nd in the group drawing with switzerland and south korea but still reached the final.

Italy also beat Australia, Ukraine and Germany. France beat Spain, Brazil and Portugal.

We can't beat Montenegro, Ukraine or Poland

But the point was they looked poor in the group stages yet still won or reached the final.

England might look poor but if we win who cares.

Yeah...but we aren't winning unless we play minnows. Thats kind of the point.

You can only beat what is in front of you and we are top of our group unbeaten.

And we aren't beating whats in front of us unless its semi professional standard.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

I will repeat we are TOP of our group UNBEATEN having scored 25 goals and only conceded 3.

Spain have scored 10 goals, Russia 15, holland 24, belgium 15 and italy 15.

I really can't see what tou are complaining about.

Probably has something to do with the 2 extra games and having a team who have conceded 43 goals so far in our group.

Considering 22 of our 25 goals have come against the 2 minnows, its actually again not the amazingly impressive stat you make out

mystiroakey wrote:Scrapping the barrel there to find luck.. even though neither was.

football is played over the whole game- it doesn't matter when you score.

Were you referring to my post?
If so, you obviously have never seen those games if you don't think poor officiating hugely favoured England in them.
The point is that its idiotic for guys like Duty to constantly bring up the times when England have been at the receiving end of poor refeering decisions and ignore the times when poor decisions have worked in Englands favour.
This is football, you get the bad with the good.

You are suggesting I didn't see those games.

Look at my age , that should give you a clue. Don't assume anything. Its stupid

mystiroakey wrote:You are suggesting I didn't see those games.

Look at my age , that should give you a clue. Don't assume anything. Its stupid

Its also stupidity to suggest that England werent lucky in those two games as you did.

I said you scraped the barrel and that the last minute is as vital as the first.

But you can keep on assuming all day long. No skin of my nose

By the way from what i remember someone shoved sheringham in the back and beckham then scored a free kick. I have no idea how you can assume that is lucky.

Sometimes shoves get free kicks and others they don't.

Why do you think this was lucky for England?

GSC wrote:Probably has something to do with the 2 extra games and having a team who have conceded 43 goals so far in our group.

Considering 22 of our 25 goals have come against the 2 minnows, its actually again not the amazingly impressive stat you make out

Not to mention that we have dropped 8 points after 8 games in a p*ss easy group. Any of the top nations would have already qualified by now.

mystiroakey wrote:By the way from what i remember someone shoved sheringham in the back and beckham then scored a free kick. I have no idea how you can assume that is lucky.

Sometimes shoves get free kicks and others they don't.

Why do you think this was lucky for England?

Personally, I thought it was an awful decision. I remember even Peter Reid (who was the ITV pundit for that game) highlighted that it should never have been given at the end.
In fact, throughout the game the referee was awarding England free kicks for shoves and nudges that were very, very soft.

FreekShow wrote:

GSC wrote:Probably has something to do with the 2 extra games and having a team who have conceded 43 goals so far in our group.

Considering 22 of our 25 goals have come against the 2 minnows, its actually again not the amazingly impressive stat you make out

Not to mention that we have dropped 8 points after 8 games in a p*ss easy group. Any of the top nations would have already qualified by now.

Thats all well and good Freek, but remember we're unbeaten

it happens every game(different interpretations)- thats a weak example imo. sometimes refs give shoves.

you either learn as the opposing team or you lose out

mystiroakey wrote:it happens every game(different interpretations)- thats a weak example imo. sometimes refs give shoves.

you either learn as the opposing team or you lose out

Maybe so, but it still lead to a goal. Any incident is crucial if it plays a major role in the final result.

Anyway, my original point was just highlighting that incidents/bad decisions/injuries can swing both ways. England have been unlucky in these areas over the years but also at times benefitted from them - like every other team.

Us England fans still bang on about Euro 96 and what might have been. What might have been for Spain had their perfectly good goal stood against us in the QF that year.

Swings and roundabouts.

If I was an England fan, yes performance shaven't been great but you top the group and that's all that matters. Other top teams have far harder groups and but Germany/Spain/Holland etc instead of England in this group and i'm sure they would have qualified, but that's because England are probably 10th best in the world at best i'm afraid. Its all about qualifying and then in knockout football anything is possible. If Sturridge can keep up his form, Rooney playing like he did against Chelsea, Welbeck scoring more who knows. Could be worse England fans, you could be a Welsh fan at the moment.

GSC wrote:Probably has something to do with the 2 extra games and having a team who have conceded 43 goals so far in our group.

Considering 22 of our 25 goals have come against the 2 minnows, its actually again not the amazingly impressive stat you make out

We only have 2 extra games than 1 group which is spains.

Also considering we have 2 extra games our goals against is still very low at 3.

Unbeaten and scoring 25 goals and conly conceding 3 is very impressive. yes we should have beat moldova which would have put us 3 points clear at the top with a much superior goal difference but I am still happy with the way we have got results.

Taking away the automatic wins we got from Moldova and San Marino

4 games, 4 draws, 3 goals scored, 3 goals conceded. Crown our asses.

2 further points

• For one thing we actually still have to beat Poland and Montenegro to realistically qualify. So going UNBEATEN might not even be enough at current rate, given Ukraine have San Marino yet to come.
  
• The Ukraine draw knocked us out of the top group of seeds for the WC realistically.
  

GSC wrote:Taking away the automatic wins we got from Moldova and San Marino

4 games, 4 draws, 3 goals scored, 3 goals conceded. Crown our asses.

2 further points

• For one thing we actually still have to beat Poland and Montenegro to realistically qualify. So going UNBEATEN might not even be enough at current rate, given Ukraine have San Marino yet to come.
  
• The Ukraine draw knocked us out of the top group of seeds for the WC realistically.
  

2 home games I am confident we will win. Considering the fact we have gone to difficult places like poland and ukraine I am confident we will remain unbeaten and finish top.

You also have to remember that when ENgland travel to Poland etc the polish team play their best because they are coming up against world famous superstars and the england team lack motivation because they are playing against players they haven't heard of (arrogance as well). The polish fans see it as a massive game and thus the atmosphere is crazy.

A lof of the fixtures for the internationls in qualifying are at bad times eg start of season or halfway through the season when players are inured/fatigued etc. If you play for man u or chelsea and you have a champions league quarter final coming up and you have an international qualifier against Moldova for eg a few weeks before you are going to try and put as little effort into that game as possible to save energy for important club fixtures where the bonueses are in their millions of pounds.

yes England should have beaten Moldova but a point away to Poland and Ukraine is a point I am satisfied with as they are tricky places to visit.

I really do think the WC in brazil is England's year to do well. Personally I think the Spanish will win it but anything can happen in football.

Liam wrote:If I was an England fan, yes performance shaven't been great but you top the group and that's all that matters. Other top teams have far harder groups and but Germany/Spain/Holland etc instead of England in this group and i'm sure they would have qualified, but that's because England are probably 10th best in the world at best i'm afraid. Its all about qualifying and then in knockout football anything is possible. If Sturridge can keep up his form, Rooney playing like he did against Chelsea, Welbeck scoring more who knows. Could be worse England fans, you could be a Welsh fan at the moment.

Exactly, and that's just what I've been saying for a while now. It doesn't matter how you get to the World Cup, just make sure you get there. Germany and Italy didn't seem to have too many problems at the 2002 and 2006 World Cups respectively, when their qualifying campaigns hit far rockier patches than England are enduring at the moment.

Duty281 wrote:

Liam wrote:If I was an England fan, yes performance shaven't been great but you top the group and that's all that matters. Other top teams have far harder groups and but Germany/Spain/Holland etc instead of England in this group and i'm sure they would have qualified, but that's because England are probably 10th best in the world at best i'm afraid. Its all about qualifying and then in knockout football anything is possible. If Sturridge can keep up his form, Rooney playing like he did against Chelsea, Welbeck scoring more who knows. Could be worse England fans, you could be a Welsh fan at the moment.

Exactly, and that's just what I've been saying for a while now. It doesn't matter how you get to the World Cup, just make sure you get there. Germany and Italy didn't seem to have too many problems at the 2002 and 2006 World Cups respectively, when their qualifying campaigns hit far rockier patches than England are enduring at the moment.

Yep I agree. The WC is a year away and qualifying starts 2 years before the tournament starts. Who cares if we drew with Ukraine and Poland in 2012 as long as we do well in 2014 at the World cup.

Too much is being looked at the qulifying groups which take place TWO years before the actual World Cup starts. Just get to the World cup by hook or by crook and then make sure the players are motivated and the tactics and choice of players are right then.

No point looking at games held in 2012 and saying we will do bad in 2014 because of a draw two years ago.

Getting to the World Cup I think will actually be detrimental to England in the long term, it's papering over the cracks whilst the whole game in this country needs a drastic wake up call.

Hero wrote:Getting to the World Cup I think will actually be detrimental to England in the long term, it's papering over the cracks whilst the whole game in this country needs a drastic wake up call.

Spot on.

Hero wrote:Getting to the World Cup I think will actually be detrimental to England in the long term, it's papering over the cracks whilst the whole game in this country needs a drastic wake up call.

Spot on.

super_realist wrote:

Hero wrote:Getting to the World Cup I think will actually be detrimental to England in the long term, it's papering over the cracks whilst the whole game in this country needs a drastic wake up call.

Spot on.

I'd be surprised if that changes anything - remember after the disaster of Euro 2008 qualification and the "root and branch" review that never happened?

I'm trying to think of that polish striker but no ones ever heard of him so think i'm on a losing battle, oh that's it Lewandowski is polish, i'm sure all those nobodies who play for Poland, Montenegro and Ukraine are the reason we haven't beaten them. What embarrassing excuse, bottom line we should be beating these teams home and away comfortably not settling for a draw, wake up and smell the coffee.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:I'm trying to think of that polish striker but no ones ever heard of him so think i'm on a losing battle, oh that's it Lewandowski is polish, i'm sure all those nobodies who play for Poland, Montenegro and Ukraine are the reason we haven't beaten them. What embarrassing excuse, bottom line we should be beating these teams home and away comfortably not settling for a draw, wake up and smell the coffee.

How so?, That's the entire reason behind England's failure. Expectation, specifically expectation born of ignorance.

There is no reason why you should beat the likes of Poland and Ukraine comfortably home and away.

The stark truth is that England really aren't very good, demeonstrated by poor and abject showings in tournaments for generations, and until you stop thinking there are teams (on, or near your level I might add) that you "deserve" to beat then you'll never get any better.
Nobody deserves to beat anyone on the basis of "who they are".

No doubt you'll say man for man you are better? Perhaps you are or perhaps they are embellished by the media to be seen as such, but football is a team game, and until England start behaving like one and playing like one with the players who best fit a team rather selected due to their name or their fame then they won't beat these teams, and certainly don't deserve or have any right to do so.

Take it from me that there will be a lot of countries who probably say the same thing about England, that they should be beating them home and away, doesn't mean they should and simply because you don't know much about the opposition, doesn't mean you "should" beat anyone simply because you are "England", a very average team indeed.

This is how I see differing opinions here.

Those that see England as potential contenders for the World Cup next year are those that drink in the media that fawns over the EPL often calling it the best league in the world on the back of United and Chelsea winning the Champions League. But look at those sides carefully and 80% of those sides have contained foreigners not English players so it is almost like success for the European Union rather than England. Look at the key players in EPL sides - they are foreigners.

Go onto the national side and England aren't guaranteed qualification yet in a group they were top seeds in - that tells me they are making heavy weather of it.Struggling to a recent friendly win over Scotland who are coming out of their lowest ebb in their history is worrying and it is backed up by not taking this qualifying group by the scruff of the neck (if they are that good).

Others who spot the flaws in this side have probably been through all this hype before. They are wise to all the talking up of England players who go AWOL on the World Cup stage and think 'Here we go again'. I'd guess they are more realistic about England's chances and are nearer to reality.

You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

In the League Cup? Seriously when was the last time United started with 6 English players, let alone 7 or more?

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

Really? But who are the key players or have been their key players over the years? Robin Van Persie, Schmeichel, Cantona, Giggs, Keane, Solskaer etc etc. Chelsea likewise have had most influence from foreign players such as Drogba, Cech etc etc.

Completely ignoring Ferdinand, Scholes, Beckham, Rooney, Carrick, surprising how you only picked the foreign players in an attempt to prove a point.

super_realist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

In the League Cup? Seriously when was the last time United started with 6 English players, let alone 7 or more?

V Liverpool in the last game...
Jones, Rio, Cleverly, Welbeck, Carrick, Young.

Ha ha ha. Do you have to go that far back? And England were still rubbish.

Mind you, you probably have to go back 10 years since the last time that many Englishmen started for Man U.

Hero wrote:

super_realist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

In the League Cup? Seriously when was the last time United started with 6 English players, let alone 7 or more?

V Liverpool in the last game...
Jones, Rio, Cleverly, Welbeck, Carrick, Young.

and guess what happened? They got beaten by a team that has spent the last 20 years living in the past and is nothing more than mid table mediocrity for a good few seasons.

Hero wrote:

super_realist wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You should probably take a closer look at the Chelsea and United squads if you think they are 80% foreign, in the case of United we often start with 6 or 7 english players sometimes more.

In the League Cup? Seriously when was the last time United started with 6 English players, let alone 7 or more?

V Liverpool in the last game...
Jones, Rio, Cleverly, Welbeck, Carrick, Young.

Whilst that was the team for Utd in that game though I'd suggest this would be Utd's strongest opening eleven if all fit;


That drops it down to 4.

There is no way on Earth Carrick can be called a key player for United and wouldn't put Rooney there either (too patchy). I am talking players who turn up and perform on biggest stages and are/have been lynchpins behind success.

Just step back and look at the bigger picture ie toiling to a narrow win over Scotland who are just coming out of a spell at their lowest ever ebb, still sweating over qualifying when you are top seeds for your group and your FA getting edgy knowing things have to change. Doesn't that tell you that England will not be big contenders IF they reach the World Cup?

Everyone calls Carrick for playing like a crab ( I myself have joined in on this), he apparently did the most forward passes of any player in a top league in Europe last season.

To be fair CC, The England team V Scotland was even worse than normal and probably not a good barometer of where they are.

Of course, they still stink and are nothing more than a team which qualifies for tournaments and arrive home before the postcards but I get your point.

Hero wrote:Everyone calls Carrick for playing like a crab ( I myself have joined in on this), he apparently did the most forward passes of any player in a top league in Europe last season.

"Hey Robin, you're 5 yards in front of me, take the ball and do something"

Carrick and Rooney have been key players for years, what on earth are you talking about we regularly start with at least 6 englishmen in the starting 11.

Champions league final 2008; Brown, Ferdinand, Hargreaves, Scholes, Carrick and Rooney

Game against chelsea this season; Ferdinand, Jones, Carrick, Rooney, Welbeck and Cleverley

Just two examples a few years apart.

2008 was five years ago. If you really have to cite that as a "recent" match then you are straw clutching.

Anyway, even if Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool etc could field 11 English players, it's still no guarantee England would be anything more than the distinctly average team they currently are  (and always have been)

If you had bothered to read what I wrote I deliberately chose a game 5 years ago to highlight how we have always relied on english talent. It's infuriating when people come out with random comments with no basis then try to back them up with sod all, I know my team and it's players to know how many of them are english.

Yet, the recent examples that people have provided have been in matches where they have either drawn or been beaten, also like I say, 1 englishmen or 11 englishmen in a team doesn't matter. England still aren't very good are they?

I suggest you probably take a look at our team sheets from last season before making such baseless comments.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:If you had bothered to read what I wrote I deliberately chose a game 5 years ago to highlight how we have always relied on english talent. It's infuriating when people come out with random comments with no basis then try to back them up with sod all, I know my team and it's players to know how many of them are english.

Sorry but that is codswallop (the part about always relying on English talent). If you look at your chief goalscoring greats of recent years they have been foreigners in the form of Robin Van Persie, Ronaldo, Cantona and Tevez. You can tout Rooney but he doesn't come into their class for me. Now that 2008 Champions League Final was between two English sides and of the 28 players used only 10 of them were English (just under 36%). That is not anything to wet ones pants about and emphasises the influence foreigners have on European success for English clubs in Europe. I think too many naive (not all of them as this thread shows there are plenty of level-headed England fans out there) take European success at club level as some kind of ticking of the box for England as a whole when it isn't really.

I don't care if Man U start or contain a lot of English players, it was CC that claimed 80% of the players were foreign, my assertion is that it is irrelevant, 1 Englishmen or 11 ENglishmen in a domestic club team such as Man U, doesn't mean a good national team does it?

I don't need to look at last seasons team sheets as the examples provided were A) A 1-0 loss to a dreary Liverpool this season, a draw with Chelsea this season and a travel back in time to 2008.

Surely though, if as you say these top teams contain a lot of Englishmen, begs the question why your national team is so poor doesn't it?

Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Tevez better than Rooney, I can't take you seriously. 197 goals in 404 games and he's not a chief goalscorer?

Okay that aside are you honestly telling me this England side have it in them to put in a strong challenge ie semis or final or winning the World Cup next year?

Bear in mind you laboured to a win over Scotland at their lowest ebb.

You are toiling to qualify for the World Cup.

The virtual same set of players couldn't challenge with any notoriety to win the Euros two years ago.

And you are on the slide down the rankings.

Terror. The question is why England are so ordinary, not how many English players Man U can field.

Can you think of a single English player who can consistently hold his head up high in international football? No, nor can I. So there is no reason why a team like England should beat "the likes of" Poland and Ukraine home and away, because time and again they consistently fail to do so, so where does this expectation that they should win come from?

Saying England have a chance of winning a tournament is like saying Nicholas Almagro has a chance of winning Wimbledon.