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.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Even English posters here admit England aren't contenders - does that merit your ire or wrath as well. Posters are oblivious to the signs:-

Even though top seeds you are currently on a par with fellow group members Montenegro and Poland (are they also World Cup contenders by the way)?

The same basic squad of players couldn't even get passed the QF's of the Euros so there is the latest indicative of England's level.

Go further back in time and it is now a generation since you reached a major semis and you were at home for that.

Digest those facts and then offer me your reasons as to why England should be considered contenders.

Are you extending the same ire to France (scraped past Georgia, a far inferior team to either Poland/Montenegro/Ukraine), Holland (drew with Estonia, need I say more), or Portugal (top seeds like England, but in 2nd place)?

Why are England contenders? Fantastic organisation, 3 in the middle at long last, a fantastic manager, a couple of world-class players, and possibly 8 first team players playing in the Champions League.

I'd also like to say that if an injury-ravaged England can draw 0-0 with the second best team in Europe, what can they do with a fully fit squad?

Duty paint It however you want the fact remains we have list far more comprehensively in friendlies than we did against England. Why? Also why is this team (basically the same set of players from Euro 2012 who only reached the quartets) now all of a sudden going to go beyond that in a far more global competition? All questions I have yet to get an answer to.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Duty paint It however you want the fact remains we have list far more comprehensively in friendlies than we did against England. Why? Also why is this team (basically the same set of players from Euro 2012 who only reached the quartets) now all of a sudden going to go beyond that in a far more global competition? All questions I have yet to get an answer to.

I'll ignore your meaningless twaddle about meaningless friendlies.

But the second point, perhaps because they'll have 2 years more experience? Perhaps the system being played is better, and more modern? Perhaps England will have greater options in the centre of midfield from now on, and up front?

And I'm not sure why drawing 0-0 with the second best team in Europe is a bad thing either.  

They do park a mean bus!

Aww come on Duty you are indulging in straw clutching. Scotland themselves have around half a dozen players with plenty of Champions League experience as do Wales but means diddly squat. In any case I'd hazard a guess you lag way behind Spain, Italy, Germany and France for players with Champions League experience. Out of interest check back to previous squads and I bet they had just as much experience at CL level. As for a fantastic manager? Stats say otherwise.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Duty paint It however you want the fact remains we have list far more comprehensively in friendlies than we did against England. Why? Also why is this team (basically the same set of players from Euro 2012 who only reached the quartets) now all of a sudden going to go beyond that in a far more global competition? All questions I have yet to get an answer to.

You lost 3-2 to england and what you are saying is that you lost far more comprehensively to other teams who are lower than england so that 3-2 loss shows how poor england is if we can't beat you as wella s lower teams.

USA beat you 5-1, Brazil only beat you 2-0 does that make Brazil a worse team than USA because they only beat you 2-0 compared to USA's 5-1 in friendly games?

Does it also mean that England's attack is better than Brazil's because England sored 3 goals past Scotland in a friendly whilst Brazil only scored 2?

Brazil were not at home whereas USA were as were England.

I have still yet to hear any convincing argument as to why England will go from Euro QF's in 2012 to World Cup winners in 2014. The team is the same and Duty feels they are more experienced - or perhaps it means they are older and past their prime? The manager is NOT fantastic in fact he was a surprise choice as every man and his dog thought Redknapp was a shoo in for it. Look at his stats compared to recent England managers and he doesn't measure up well.

Of course England have a chance, it's a tournament, and during tournaments there can be shocks, all it takes is the odd result going England's way and they're in the semi-finals. A lot of people believe England will make the quarter finals, yet for some reason it's a huge stretch of the imagination that England could move one step further than that, by winning one match? Rubbish.

It could be the luck of the draw ending up with a poor side, it could be a few decisions going England's way, the other side missing a star player, England just having a really good day. There are lots of reasons why England could win that one match to put them in the semi-finals. 

I'd say this current England side is better than both the Turkey and South Korea sides that were in the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup, it can happen.

crimey

We could fluke it to the semi's but no team as ever fluked a world cup. TBH, this lot will do well to get to the Q/F's.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Brazil were not at home whereas USA were as were England.

I have still yet to hear any convincing argument as to why England will go from Euro QF's in 2012 to World Cup winners in 2014. The team is the same and Duty feels they are more experienced - or perhaps it means they are older and past their prime? The manager is NOT fantastic in fact he was a surprise choice as every man and his dog thought Redknapp was a shoo in for it. Look at his stats compared to recent England managers  and he doesn't measure up well.

You are placing too much emphasis on a friendly game england WON pre season. It is getting boring now.

Crimey wrote:Of course England have a chance, it's a tournament, and during tournaments there can be shocks, all it takes is the odd result going England's way and they're in the semi-finals. A lot of people believe England will make the quarter finals, yet for some reason it's a huge stretch of the imagination that England could move one step further than that, by winning one match? Rubbish.

It could be the luck of the draw ending up with a poor side, it could be a few decisions going England's way, the other side missing a star player, England just having a really good day. There are lots of reasons why England could win that one match to put them in the semi-finals. 

I'd say this current England side is better than both the Turkey and South Korea sides that were in the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup, it can happen.

I agree, To many peple like caledonian who are saing it is impossible for england to reach the semi finals but if england can reach the quarter finals it is just one game they need to win and as you pointed out anything could happen.

Greece won euro 2004, turkey reached the semi finals in world cup 2002. Anything can happen.

Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Crimey wrote:I'd say this current England side is better than both the Turkey and South Korea sides that were in the semi-finals of the 2002 World Cup, it can happen.

Better individuals, worse team.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

It is getting really boring. We beat scotland in a friendly before the season even started. We also beat france italy, spain and brazil in friendlies too.

Talking about friendlies is pointless especially pre-season friendlies but what is even more pointless is when you keep bringing up friendlies when England have in the past 2 years beaten over 5 top teams.

That's right keep ignoring the other points will you. But of course it is because you have no answer to them.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That's right keep ignoring the other points will you. But of course it is because you have no answer to them.

You have been banging on about friendlies for days so lets discuss them. Which friendly results have england lost? to whom and what score. Which friendly results have england won, to whom and what score.

You keep saying England looked poor against Scotland but we won so that can be the first friendly game you count as a win. So post the friendlies since euro 2012.

Really when the argument is England might make the semis with a ton of luck it says it all.

English game needs a total revamp, top to bottom.

totally agree GSC!

GSC wrote:Really when the argument is England might make the semis with a ton of luck it says it all.

English game needs a total revamp, top to bottom.

I am saying we will reach qf and with a bit of luck sf.

Just like I think portugal, holland, uruguay, belgium etc will reach the qf and maybe sf with a bit of luck.

England are a poor outfit and limited in many ways. If you can't even create a simple passing strategy to each other then, in reality, all you can do is do what Roy is doing. Sit back, try and counter & win 1-0 but if you can't score, then be happy with the point or ET. That can only get you so far, however because England's organisation is pretty good and we can defend, it will take us further than other teams of similar ability. We play badly against smaller teams because we can't figure out, especially away from home, how to transform Roy's usual negative, defensive tactics to more open, attacking play which is what we should be playing against these smaller teams. Ukraine are even better at differing strategies, I mean they went to Montenegro, had a man sent off and still won 4-1. They made Montenegro look dire, however we went there, couldn't impose ourselves offensively and drew 1-1 and in the process made Montenegro look like group contenders. Against big teams, like Spain or Italy, it actually suits our style because we are tough to break down and actually want the game to be tight and end in, hopefully Roy's 1-0 win plan. I do fear for us when things don't go to plan against higher quality at the WC though and we're not so lucky. We will just look a mess with Roy biting his nails, touching his face constantly, Lewington looking clueless & Neville just shouting randomly.

Overall, England have the quality to get to a QF and that should be the target, irrespective of how bad we are currently because knockout football is just a complete guess as to what will happen.

If we actually made it, I wouldnt be surprised if we didnt make the last 16. Unless we get a very fortunate draw.

The rest of those teams at least have the potential to come good. All of those could give Spain etc a game if they played well. All we could do is put 10 men behind the ball and pray for a free kick.

14/08/2013 England 3 - 2 Scotland International Match Win

02/06/2013 Brazil 2 - 2 England International Match Draw

29/05/2013 England 1 - 1 Republic of Ireland International Match Draw

06/02/2013 England 2 - 1 Brazil International Match Win

14/11/2012 Sweden 4 - 2 England International Match Loss

15/08/2012 Italy 1 - 2 England International Match Win

02/06/2012 England 1 - 0 Belgium International Match Win

26/05/2012 Norway 0 - 1 England International Match Win

29/02/2012 England 2 - 3 Holland International Match Loss

15/11/2011 England 1 - 0 Sweden International Match Win

12/11/2011 England 1 - 0 Spain International Match Win

29/03/2011 England 1 - 1 Ghana International Match Draw

09/02/2011 Denmark 1 - 2 England International Match Win

...............................................................

8 wins including wins over brazil, belgium, italy, Spain, Sweden

3 draws including a 2-2 draw with Brazil in Brazil.

3 losses to sweden, holland, france.

so in 14 friendlies since 09/11 we have 8 wins, 3 draws and 3 defeats.

England's friendly results look very impressive to me.

John wrote:England are a poor outfit and limited in many ways. If you can't even create a simple passing strategy to each other then, in reality, all you can do is do what Roy is doing. Sit back, try and counter & win 1-0 but if you can't score, then be happy with the point or ET. That can only get you so far, however because England's organisation is pretty good and we can defend, it will take us further than other teams of similar ability. We play badly against smaller teams because we can't figure out, especially away from home, how to transform Roy's usual negative, defensive tactics to more open, attacking play which is what we should be playing against these smaller teams. Ukraine are even better at differing strategies, I mean they went to Montenegro, had a man sent off and still won 4-1. They made Montenegro look dire, however we went there, couldn't impose ourselves offensively and drew 1-1 and in the process made Montenegro look like group contenders. Against big teams, like Spain or Italy, it actually suits our style because we are tough to break down and actually want the game to be tight and end in, hopefully Roy's 1-0 win plan. I do fear for us when things don't go to plan against higher quality at the WC though and we're not so lucky. We will just look a mess with Roy biting his nails, touching his face constantly, Lewington looking clueless & Neville just shouting randomly.

Overall, England have the quality to get to a QF and that should be the target, irrespective of how bad we are currently because knockout football is just a complete guess as to what will happen.

The thing is, we have Wilshere, Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard etc. These players have all proven they can control and pass a ball at the highest level.

What are the chances they all forget how to play football everytime they play for England? For me the problem has to lie with the mentality and tactics. England have gone nowhere since the Euros. If anything we've got worse. The whole setup needs modernisation.

I'd also impose a new rule. Anyone with a sudden niggle has to report regardless and prove said niggle. Anyone who just withdraws because they can't be bothered doesn't get picked until the end of the next tournament.

GSC wrote:

John wrote:England are a poor outfit and limited in many ways. If you can't even create a simple passing strategy to each other then, in reality, all you can do is do what Roy is doing. Sit back, try and counter & win 1-0 but if you can't score, then be happy with the point or ET. That can only get you so far, however because England's organisation is pretty good and we can defend, it will take us further than other teams of similar ability. We play badly against smaller teams because we can't figure out, especially away from home, how to transform Roy's usual negative, defensive tactics to more open, attacking play which is what we should be playing against these smaller teams. Ukraine are even better at differing strategies, I mean they went to Montenegro, had a man sent off and still won 4-1. They made Montenegro look dire, however we went there, couldn't impose ourselves offensively and drew 1-1 and in the process made Montenegro look like group contenders. Against big teams, like Spain or Italy, it actually suits our style because we are tough to break down and actually want the game to be tight and end in, hopefully Roy's 1-0 win plan. I do fear for us when things don't go to plan against higher quality at the WC though and we're not so lucky. We will just look a mess with Roy biting his nails, touching his face constantly, Lewington looking clueless & Neville just shouting randomly.

Overall, England have the quality to get to a QF and that should be the target, irrespective of how bad we are currently because knockout football is just a complete guess as to what will happen.

The thing is, we have Wilshere, Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard etc. These players have all proven they can control and pass a ball at the highest level.

What are the chances they all forget how to play football everytime they play for England? For me the problem has to lie with the mentality and tactics. England have gone nowhere since the Euros. If anything we've got worse. The whole setup needs modernisation.

Agree, tactics are horrible, especially away from home against the lesser sides. We allow them to settle, play their game and give them confidence. We should be the aggressors, dictating the tempo but we don't. It's all about being tight and compact under Roy and no one is allowed to express themselves, it results in the one man up top getting isolated and we lose possession. It's even worse when Rooney plays because he gets infuriated, loses his temper and plays awful. You say we have Carrick, our best passer but Roy and many fans don't like him or want him. Says it all.

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:Duty, I don't think anyone said they were destined for glory, rather that they were/are contenders, however anyone with an ounce of logic would see that to be a complete pipe dream.

As I said a few posts ago, there is no shame in being as average as England are. It's just the level they have virtually always been at, expecting them to suddenly make the leap to contending tournaments is as unrealistic and fanciful as expecting Scotland to regularly qualify for tournaments.

Teams that I feel could win the world cup next year, in no particular order:

Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Belgium, Portugal, Holland, and Uruguay.

England are in that bracket. On raw technical ability, they're at the lower end of that list. On organisation and defensive ability, they're right at the top end. Right now, I'd make Germany favourites for the World Cup. But England certainly have a chance.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that England are in any way capable of winning the World Cup. They have proven time and again just how ineffective and inept they are in major competitions. I've seen nothing since 1990 to suggest they are capable of getting to the dizzy heights of even the last 4.
England deserve to be nowhere near that list. They are without a doubt in a second rung of teams below that which yo listed.
Anyone with an ounce of reality can see that. Not even Adrian Durham thinks England have a chance. England, like Sweden, Switzerland , denmark have a chance if you want to refer to it as that, but i've got a chance of crapping in the queens handbag. doesn't mean it will happen.

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:Duty, I don't think anyone said they were destined for glory, rather that they were/are contenders, however anyone with an ounce of logic would see that to be a complete pipe dream.

As I said a few posts ago, there is no shame in being as average as England are. It's just the level they have virtually always been at, expecting them to suddenly make the leap to contending tournaments is as unrealistic and fanciful as expecting Scotland to regularly qualify for tournaments.

Teams that I feel could win the world cup next year, in no particular order:

Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Belgium, Portugal, Holland, and Uruguay.

England are in that bracket. On raw technical ability, they're at the lower end of that list. On organisation and defensive ability, they're right at the top end. Right now, I'd make Germany favourites for the World Cup. But England certainly have a chance.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that England are in any way capable of winning the World Cup. They have proven time and again just how ineffective and inept they are in major competitions. I've seen nothing since 1990 to suggest they are capable of getting to the dizzy heights of even the last 4.
England deserve to be nowhere near that list. They are without a doubt in a second rung of teams below that which yo listed.
Anyone with an ounce of reality can see that. Not even Adrian Durham thinks England have a chance. England, like Sweden, Switzerland , denmark have a chance if you want to refer to  it as that, but i've got a chance of crapping in the queens handbag. doesn't mean it will happen.

I agree with you and wouldn't put them as favourites but we can't say england will do bad at wc 2014 because 22 years ago they did bad at euro 1992

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

       

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

What does the past have to do with this? How England did in 2006 and 2010, or even before that, will have very little bearing on how England do next summer.

Yet you seem to think they have a chance, based on absolutely nothing at all apart from your wish to see them do well.

England regardless of which generation and which tournament have a combination of insufficient talent, tactics, technique and bottle, yet you think they are in a group of 8 or so teams which can win.

I doubt you'd find anyone other than an Englishman who would think that. Saying England have "a chance" is like saying someone like Sweden have a chance and how absurd does that sound?, because that is the level England are at.

I don't think Carrick is particularly good, but he can control and pass a ball (as long as the recipient is very close). Still hes better than the pointlessness that is Tom Cleverley

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:Duty, I don't think anyone said they were destined for glory, rather that they were/are contenders, however anyone with an ounce of logic would see that to be a complete pipe dream.

As I said a few posts ago, there is no shame in being as average as England are. It's just the level they have virtually always been at, expecting them to suddenly make the leap to contending tournaments is as unrealistic and fanciful as expecting Scotland to regularly qualify for tournaments.

Teams that I feel could win the world cup next year, in no particular order:

Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, Belgium, Portugal, Holland, and Uruguay.

England are in that bracket. On raw technical ability, they're at the lower end of that list. On organisation and defensive ability, they're right at the top end. Right now, I'd make Germany favourites for the World Cup. But England certainly have a chance.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that England are in any way capable of winning the World Cup. They have proven time and again just how ineffective and inept they are in major competitions. I've seen nothing since 1990 to suggest they are capable of getting to the dizzy heights of even the last 4.
England deserve to be nowhere near that list. They are without a doubt in a second rung of teams below that which yo listed.
Anyone with an ounce of reality can see that. Not even Adrian Durham thinks England have a chance. England, like Sweden, Switzerland , denmark have a chance if you want to refer to  it as that, but i've got a chance of crapping in the queens handbag. doesn't mean it will happen.

I agree with you and wouldn't put them as favourites but we can't say england will do bad at wc 2014 because 22 years ago they did bad at euro 1992

Agreed, however the fact remains that historically England are no better than a pretty average team. Even at their best they aren't as good as the 1990 team, so there is no logical reason that they could even get to the semi, let alone win anything.
There is nothing wrong with being as average as England, but it's pretty deluded to think they are of a standard capable of winning a World Cup. When was the last time a team as average as England won the World Cup? It's not going to happen.

mystiroakey wrote:You make out you aren't scottish. Yet you share the main scottish trait!!

You are as scottish as haggis and bagpipes

Oakey, I'm Scottish by an accident of birth and to suggest that it is my Scottishness that is causing me to talk about England in this way is a bit shortsighted, there isn't another country in the world who would think England are realistic contenders in this competition.

England aren't a major force, probably never have been, and there isn't a team with genuine title ambitions who would be remotely frightened of playing them or who fancy them as fellow contenders.

Saying England have a chance of winning a World Cup is as hollow and meaningless as saying Andorra or Austria can win it. England are just near the front of a long list of teams that have a microscopically small chance of winning, so small that it's an "If you're Auntie had balls, she'd be your uncle" type scenario.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

John wrote:England are a poor outfit and limited in many ways. If you can't even create a simple passing strategy to each other then, in reality, all you can do is do what Roy is doing. Sit back, try and counter & win 1-0 but if you can't score, then be happy with the point or ET. That can only get you so far, however because England's organisation is pretty good and we can defend, it will take us further than other teams of similar ability. We play badly against smaller teams because we can't figure out, especially away from home, how to transform Roy's usual negative, defensive tactics to more open, attacking play which is what we should be playing against these smaller teams. Ukraine are even better at differing strategies, I mean they went to Montenegro, had a man sent off and still won 4-1. They made Montenegro look dire, however we went there, couldn't impose ourselves offensively and drew 1-1 and in the process made Montenegro look like group contenders. Against big teams, like Spain or Italy, it actually suits our style because we are tough to break down and actually want the game to be tight and end in, hopefully Roy's 1-0 win plan. I do fear for us when things don't go to plan against higher quality at the WC though and we're not so lucky. We will just look a mess with Roy biting his nails, touching his face constantly, Lewington looking clueless & Neville just shouting randomly.

Overall, England have the quality to get to a QF and that should be the target, irrespective of how bad we are currently because knockout football is just a complete guess as to what will happen.

Which is also what I've been saying. Getting to that stage would be deemed par, but you always to do a bit better than par, so the semis should be the realistic target.

I don't think QF is par. Getting out the group is closer to par since we aren't a top seed.

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

       

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

What does the past have to do with this? How England did in 2006 and 2010, or even before that, will have very little bearing on how England do next summer.

Yet you seem to think they have a chance, based on absolutely nothing at all apart from your wish to see them do well.

England regardless of which generation and which tournament have a combination of insufficient talent, tactics, technique and bottle, yet you think they are in a group of 8 or so teams which can win.

I doubt you'd find anyone other than an Englishman who would think that. Saying England have "a chance" is like saying someone like Sweden have a chance and how absurd does that sound?, because that is the level England are at.

England aren't at Sweden's level, they're at France's level, or Portugal's level, and perhaps Holland's level. The lower end of the top-tier bracket, which I would roughly define as teams that have quality, but drastically underachieve.

The reason why England have a chance is due to the very nature of knockout football, as Crimey points out. If the world cup was all a round-robin stage, and played out like a Premier League season, then I would say England's don't have a chance. But it's one-off football, and anything can happen. You only have to look at Turkey/South Korea making the semis in 2002, Greece winning Euro 2004, or even Holland making the last World Cup final to see that England do have a chance. And it's silly to right England's chances off.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

I agree that England should never be considered candidates to win a tournament.  I think getting to the knock out stages is about right.  Quarter Finals would be very good.  Semis would be an amazing success.
I think we have good players but we haven't played well as a team for around 17 years.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

Italy hadn't won a thing for 24 years when 2006 came around. Not sure what you mean by winning mentality?

Would your opinion change if England get knocked out in the last 32 but play great attacking football and draw 4-4 with germany before getting Knocked out on penalties or if england played horrible football but won every game 1-0 and won the ec. Which team would you say is better

I'd go out and buy a lottery ticket

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

       

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

What does the past have to do with this? How England did in 2006 and 2010, or even before that, will have very little bearing on how England do next summer.

Yet you seem to think they have a chance, based on absolutely nothing at all apart from your wish to see them do well.

England regardless of which generation and which tournament have a combination of insufficient talent, tactics, technique and bottle, yet you think they are in a group of 8 or so teams which can win.

I doubt you'd find anyone other than an Englishman who would think that. Saying England have "a chance" is like saying someone like Sweden have a chance and how absurd does that sound?, because that is the level England are at.

England aren't at Sweden's level, they're at France's level, or Portugal's level, and perhaps Holland's level. The lower end of the top-tier bracket, which I would roughly define as teams that have quality, but drastically underachieve.

How do you arrive at these conclusions given we've not beaten any teams of this level in competitive fixtures?

In competitive fixtures in the last 12 months we've drawn with Ukraine twice and also Poland and Montenegro. We can't even beat teams of that level so how the hell are you creating this idea that we're on France or Portugal's level??!!

We haven't beaten a top level team in years - Croatia in 2009!!!

http://www.thefa.com/england/Results

The only arguments for England are basically 'Anything can happen'.

Which is fantastic, but not very dependable.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

Italy hadn't won a thing for 24 years when 2006 came around. Not sure what you mean by winning mentality?

But were there or threabouts at how many tournaments?

1988 Euros - Semi-Finalists

1990 World Cup - 3rd

1994 World Cup - Runners-Up

2000 Euros - Runners-Up

2006 World Cup - CHAMPIONS

2012 Euros - Runners-Up

That is the sort of showings that show they have far superior mentality to England - other leading nations are the same.

If England were to go on and win the World Cup I'd rank it alongside Greece's Euro 2004 triumph as being the shocker of all shockers.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

Italy hadn't won a thing for 24 years when 2006 came around. Not sure what you mean by winning mentality?

But were there or threabouts at how many tournaments?

1988 Euros - Semi-Finalists

1990 World Cup - 3rd

1994 World Cup - Runners-Up

2000 Euros - Runners-Up

2006 World Cup - CHAMPIONS

2012 Euros - Runners-Up

That is the sort of showings that show they have far superior mentality to England - other leading nations are the same.

Why are you bringing up euro 2012 when duty was talking about UPTO 2006?

Any why are you still talking about England you are scottish! It's so obvious you are jealous of englands ability to qualify for tournaments

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

Italy hadn't won a thing for 24 years when 2006 came around. Not sure what you mean by winning mentality?

But were there or threabouts at how many tournaments?

1988 Euros - Semi-Finalists

1990 World Cup - 3rd

1994 World Cup - Runners-Up

2000 Euros - Runners-Up

2006 World Cup - CHAMPIONS

2012 Euros - Runners-Up

That is the sort of showings that show they have far superior mentality to England - other leading nations are the same.

Name 8 teams not including italy that have a record equal to or slightly better/worse than Italys.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Steffan wrote:So how do you all think England will do in Brazil then next year? (Yes better than Wales I know)

My heart tells me, semi-finals and out on penalties. But only after England have taken out a big name in the quarters.

       

I admire your optimism, but considering they haven't made a semi in eons in countries considered to be far easier to play in what possible reason other than rose tintedness and sentimentality is there that England will make the semi's? Good job you said your heart, because your head would tell you knockouts probably and QF possibly.

Thats like a Swede, Czech, Chilean or Dane saying they will reach the semi (teams similar to standard of England) hoping to get to the semi's

What does the past have to do with this? How England did in 2006 and 2010, or even before that, will have very little bearing on how England do next summer.

Yet you seem to think they have a chance, based on absolutely nothing at all apart from your wish to see them do well.

England regardless of which generation and which tournament have a combination of insufficient talent, tactics, technique and bottle, yet you think they are in a group of 8 or so teams which can win.

I doubt you'd find anyone other than an Englishman who would think that. Saying England have "a chance" is like saying someone like Sweden have a chance and how absurd does that sound?, because that is the level England are at.

England aren't at Sweden's level, they're at France's level, or Portugal's level, and perhaps Holland's level. The lower end of the top-tier bracket, which I would roughly define as teams that have quality, but drastically underachieve.

How do you arrive at these conclusions given we've not beaten any teams of this level in competitive fixtures?

In competitive fixtures in the last 12 months we've drawn with Ukraine twice and also Poland and Montenegro.  We can't even beat teams of that level so how the hell are you creating this idea that we're on France or Portugal's level??!!  

We haven't beaten a top level team in years - Croatia in 2009!!!

http://www.thefa.com/england/Results

Hence why we've underachieved. Mind you, we've only played 3 top level teams in competition since beating Croatia I think - Germany 2010 (which you think we would have won had Lampard's obvious goal been given), France 2012 (draw), and Italy 2012 (draw).

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Friendlies are one part and I have mentioned the other parts which you have not addressed such as if England are contenders then surely you'd expect more from the qualifying campaign where you have only beaten the fodder teams in your group. If you are toiling to fashion wins against Ukraine, Poland and Montenegro then wait until you competitively face bigger fish in international football. Also look at your manager stats - aren't they below what Capello and Erikkson managed yet they won diddly squat. And like I said your squad (virtually the same) couldn't get beyond the Euro Quarters so with that form pointer why should you be considered to have improved enough to better that next summer at a global competition.

It is like the old line from 'Through The Keyhole' - the clues are there.

Which is why I pointed out how Italy fared in 2006 after a poor qualification campaign, or even Germany in 2002 after a much worse qualifying campaign than England are going through right now.

But Italy and Germany are proven successful countries in international football who have the honours to show for it. Winning is inbred into their mentality - unlike England.

Italy hadn't won a thing for 24 years when 2006 came around. Not sure what you mean by winning mentality?

But were there or threabouts at how many tournaments?

1988 Euros - Semi-Finalists

1990 World Cup - 3rd

1994 World Cup - Runners-Up

2000 Euros - Runners-Up

2006 World Cup - CHAMPIONS

2012 Euros - Runners-Up

That is the sort of showings that show they have far superior mentality to England - other leading nations are the same.

Why are you bringing up euro 2012 when duty was talking about UPTO 2006?

Any why are you still talking about England you are scottish! It's so obvious you are jealous of englands ability to qualify for tournaments

Exactly CS. Also, I'm not sure how "there or thereabouts" constitutes a winning mentality.  

Why would you think we would've won the Germany game? They were the better side throughout.

Stick your dummy back in eh Socialist.  

Can we have conversations without childish outbursts please. If so I will continue and put across a few facts to why myself and other posters here of whom a fair few are English feel England are not going to be contenders.

1. Their qualifying campaign to date has seen them hammer the minnows of the group San Marino and Moldova scoring 22 goals against them but lets remember you won't be facing San Marino and Moldova if you get to Brazil. The better teams in the group have seen you play Montenegro, Ukraine and Poland scoring three goals in four matches and not beating any of those teams. That is not the form I'd expect from World Cup contenders so that is one piece of evidence.

2. This is basically the same squad of players that got no further than the QF's at Euro 2012 (our most recent form to go by in major competitions). You drew with France, beat Sweden courtesy of a late goal twelve minutes from time and beat Ukraine by a solitary goal (yet you can't beat that same team in this campaign) and exited at the Quarters against Italy. Yes you will want to point out it was on pens but the stats show a ridiculously one-sided game. Now that was the Euros and next up is a global tournament so even more strength so why should it be presumed you will do better here?

3. Lets look at your manager. The stats paint a poor picture on Roy Hodgson's record as England manager compared to Capello and Eriksson and we know they never won a thing so pray tell how are England going to win a major tournament or fair better than they did with a statistically worse manager.

Remember as well that this is all hypothetical since England are still yet to qualify.