Euro 2016 Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Thats an awful pass from Kane

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Those champions league teams had at most 3 English players on the pitch at any one time which adds to my point.

In the 2008 final we (Man United) had 6 English starters all while Chelsea had 4, that constituted at the time 7 of the England starting eleven.

Well done, you found an exception. The wider point stands. Our players are sh1te. You can produce any combination of squads from our players and every single one of them will look crap.

My point about no world class English players in the last decade refers to new players - not established ones like Gerrard and Scholes. My fault, I should have been clearer.

We exaggerate their qualities and are far too ready to label them world class when they're not. Then when they inevitabley limp out - usually with one of the most abject performances of any of the teams in the competition - we act surprised and look hither and thither for reasons. Look no further than the players. They're the ones that count. Everything else is peripheral.

think england players lack a lot of "football intelligence", they very rarely can fit into other systems than what their used to and only play in a very rigid way, nothing like most of the rest of the continent. scholes was the last player who i thought could run a game, a lot being through he ability to read the game. its whys the likes of gerrard and lampard struggled to fit in and play together despite being individually great players, they were only used to playing like they did for there club

this team not too dissimilar, asked to play in different roles and weve seen the results. roy should take some blame as he played them there, but ive always believed that good footballers can play any where on the pitch. silva for example is a classic 10. for large parts of his career he's been played wider and still been a fantastic player there. similar to the likes of inestia, you could play him any where in midfield and he would still be great. we produce brain dead players who's only ability in life is to kick a football. listen to some of the other players from round the world, much more rounded individuals

not overly surprised by englands failure, predicted we'd get knocked out by iceland. problem being is we think were better than we are. as a result you get a team that doesnt have half the work rate of some of the "lesser" nations and it shows

Duty281 wrote:I've been hearing/reading bits about how "this is the lowest moment in England football history" and stuff similar to that.

I don't think it's quite that bad. Iceland are a very credible football side - but a lot of fans and the media seem to look past that and gawp at the population size - who have beaten the Netherlands twice, defeated Austria, and drew to Hungary and Portugal.

Not denying that England were poor, but there's rather a lot of hyperbole about the scale of the calamity. Iceland are a very competent football side, not some minnow nation, not some plucky nation, but a talented team equipped with excellent tactics and strategy. France won't have it easy.

And I see the bookmakers, who never watch actual football matches and instead are reliant on various statistics, have compounded their previous error by offering 9/1 on Iceland to beat France in 90 minutes, or 5/1 to qualify overall.

Don't agree about the scale of the calamity...its not the size of their population or even the fact they were well organised for a "minnow" team. The plain and simple fact it that if England want to be considered a major force in world football, they should be beating teams like that out of sight...they way they dispatched teams in qualifying.

Hope your bet pays off anyway...I take it you will be putting some money on?

As bad as our football team is, our pundits are even worse.

catchweight wrote:As bad as our football team is, our pundits are even worse.

Not quite as bad as our team that would be impossible.

Crouch was the worst of the lot.

Wright and Dixon were pretty good imo.

If you look at the Italian team, there are no world stars, but what they have is good quality players who know what their role in the team is, and who also play with passion and fight, its simple, their manager Conte knows what he's doing and how to play to his players strengths, which is exactly what Hodgson lacked tactical know how.

I think Shearer has been the best pundit, when everyone was crowing about England dominating possession, he kept saying we weren't playing well, totally honest from the start and was proven to be right in the end.

The players that come in regardless of who they are and which team they play for will be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past countless years until a proper system is put into place from a youth age through to the England side.
There's such little investment in quality coaches at a youth level and we then wonder why technically our top level players can't make the simplest of passes. Get the money that's being pumped into the English game filtered down properly and have an identity for teams that as the kids get older then each and every year they're already used to how they fit into the system and how they progress.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Crimey wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Townsend playing rubbish is still better than James Milner.

Total and utter rubbish. Not that I should expect any better.

Not at all, if Milner wasn't a Liverpool player you wouldn't be defending, he is an awful player to be taking to a major championship, backwards thinking at it's worst.

He was fantastic this season, particularly after the new year where he was hugely influential in the biggest games. I don't think he's good enough to be a central midfielder, at least not in a two, but based on form, he was way ahead of Townsend and based on ability; way ahead of Townsend, based on usefulness to a squad; way ahead of Townsend. 

I don't think 13 games for Newcastle was enough for Townsend to deserve a spot. If he was taken, it'd be purely because he's a winger and the lack of options.

In a whole season, Milner scored five goals or so. Townsend, while regaining match fitness, playing for just a few months, in a poor side, scored four goals & had like five assists. If Townsend had the whole campaign, the gap between them, in terms of impact & stats, would of been huge. Townsend has so much more ability than Milner nowadays, pace & actual goal threat, whereas Milner's game is essentially workmanlike & energy. If he offered anything more, he would of played more than four minutes. All he did in France, was mess up is vs Russia & then he just carried water bottles for the rest of the tournament. Milner needs to retire, no point bringing his name up anymore, he's of the past, when we should be looking to the future.

For what they're worth here are my views on England's woes. My own view is that England players are just not very good. Accept we should be good enough to beat Iceland but the crucial difference is teams who accept their limitations cut their cloth tactically around those limitations, as Iceland did last night. England genuinely think they're one of the of the best teams in the world and such things as tactical adjustments or putting a big man up top are beneath them.

It is a complete delusion created and fed into by Sky and BT, best league in the world, most exciting league in the world, shown on 307 planets or whatever other marketing guff they spout. Go through the league, who are the best keepers in it, De Gea and Cech, who are the best centre halves, Kompany and Vertongen, pretty much go through every position and none of the best players are English. Hell, Wilshire is that good we'll take him not fit, he barely gets in the Arsenal side if everyone is fit.

Think about it how many premier players in recent years have Barca or Real Madrid genuinely tried to buy, Bale, Suarez, De Gea, Mascherano and Henry, something of a theme there. You've got to go back to Beckham and Owen since they were interested in anyone English. They're rubbish and should accept it. Once they have accepted it they may, like other teams who are rubbish, appreciate they may have to make up for their deficiencies in ability through such things as tactical astuteness or graft.

Moreover, we need pace out wide and Milner wouldn't offer it.

Bilic was the best pundit, pretty sure it's why he's in the betting for the England job.

My dream would be Wenger for the job by the way, but he can't do it now. A year or so maybe. Put Hoddle in charge on a caretaker basis.

I'd also take Klinsmann, but can't see the Sun readers liking that

Klinsmann is atrocious, he's been awful for the United States. How he continues to have such a good reputation is baffling.

Of course John, because the only way to measure talent is goals. Milner was great for Liverpool this season. Townsend did well enough to not stop Newcastle getting relegated and getting a move away. Imagine he'll have another decent six months at Palace and then fade away, as his way.

Milner has already basically said he's retiring from international football anyway but I'd have taken him over Townsend every time. He's a much better player, had a much better season and had miles more use to the squad. Townsend wouldn't have played just like Milner. I'd rather have the consummate professional with huge amounts of experience in the squad, than Townsend who showed at Tottenham he has a poor attitude and has never breached 25 league games in a season.

i wouldnt mind Bilic, needs to be a strong personality.

Crimey wrote:Of course John

You mean, LiamB

Crimey wrote:Klinsmann is atrocious, he's been awful for the United States. How he continues to have such a good reputation is baffling.

You want a top to bottom man, Klinsmann is basically the catalyst of the German side that won the World Cup and produced a raft of wonderful young players. America would be wise to let him do whatever the hell he wants, cos hes more than an "on the pitch" manager. The fact is, he got widely criticised in the US for saying it wasnt realistic for them to look at winning the 2014 World Cup (http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24585549/unrealistic-for-us-to-win-world-cup-klinsmann-sure-isnt-from-around-here an example of their s***), they do not understand the long-term concepts.

John wrote:

Crimey wrote:Of course John

You mean, LiamB

Apologies, I assumed only a Newcastle fan could be so fervent in their support for Townsend.

Rowley wrote:For what they're worth here are my views on England's woes. My own view is that England players are just not very good. Accept we should be good enough to beat Iceland but the crucial difference is teams who accept their limitations cut their cloth tactically around those limitations, as Iceland did last night. England genuinely think they're one of the of the best teams in the world and such things as tactical adjustments or putting a big man up top are beneath them.

It is a complete delusion created and fed into by Sky and BT, best league in the world, most exciting league in the world, shown on 307 planets or whatever other marketing guff they spout. Go through the league, who are the best keepers in it, De Gea and Cech, who are the best centre halves, Kompany and Vertongen, pretty much go through every position and none of the best players are English. Hell, Wilshire is that good we'll take him not fit, he barely gets in the Arsenal side if everyone is fit.

Think about it how many premier players in recent years have Barca or Real Madrid genuinely tried to buy, Bale, Suarez, De Gea, Mascherano and Henry, something of a theme there. You've got to go back to Beckham and Owen since they were interested in anyone English. They're rubbish and should accept it. Once they have accepted it they may, like other teams who are rubbish, appreciate they may have to make up for their deficiencies in ability through such things as tactical astuteness or graft.

 
Well said. I'm always completely bemused by the hype around England every two years- they've won two knockout games since Italia 90, which puts them on four knockout wins in my lifetime. I expected them to beat Iceland unconvincingly before going out in the quarters, so I am surprised at the manner of their exit- I probably overestimated them a bit. But their record shows that they are not a top-tier side who will always be amongst the contenders at a major tournament. They are a decent mid-tier side that can realistically expect to qualify for the big tournaments every time but once they get there, anything past the group stages should be considered a major plus. Players come and go, managers come and go, but the results have been the same for 26 years now. Maybe thats just their natural level.

Crimey wrote:

John wrote:

Crimey wrote:Of course John

You mean, LiamB

Apologies, I assumed only a Newcastle fan could be so fervent in their support for Townsend.

Sorry Crimey, this really is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

GSC wrote:

Crimey wrote:

John wrote:

Crimey wrote:Of course John

You mean, LiamB

Apologies, I assumed only a Newcastle fan could be so fervent in their support for Townsend.

Sorry Crimey, this really is an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

I'd defend every player in the England squad over Townsend. Probably one of the few players in football whose reputation is actually enhanced from not playing.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I've been hearing/reading bits about how "this is the lowest moment in England football history" and stuff similar to that.

I don't think it's quite that bad. Iceland are a very credible football side - but a lot of fans and the media seem to look past that and gawp at the population size - who have beaten the Netherlands twice, defeated Austria, and drew to Hungary and Portugal.

Not denying that England were poor, but there's rather a lot of hyperbole about the scale of the calamity. Iceland are a very competent football side, not some minnow nation, not some plucky nation, but a talented team equipped with excellent tactics and strategy. France won't have it easy.

And I see the bookmakers, who never watch actual football matches and instead are reliant on various statistics, have compounded their previous error by offering 9/1 on Iceland to beat France in 90 minutes, or 5/1 to qualify overall.

Don't agree about the scale of the calamity...its not the size of their population or even the fact they were well organised for a "minnow" team. The plain and simple fact it that if England want to be considered a major force in world football, they should be beating teams like that out of sight...they way they dispatched teams in qualifying.

Hope your bet pays off anyway...I take it you will be putting some money on?

I think I shall have another nibble on the Iceland.

F.A's masterplan is having Southgate as interim & then hoping Wenger leaves Arsenal next summer & then appointing him.

https://twitter.com/LinoTreize/status/747790389898321920

Harry Kane everybody

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Carroll was in good enough form to be taken ahead of Sturridge probably, who Klopp wasnt entirely keen on as first choice and was just a much of a muchness pick. Sturridge is the better player, no doubt, but he offered one goal and nothing else really? Plus, as possibly third choice striker he offered no alternative style where we needed it.

Sturridge was in excellent form at the end of the season, don't know what you're talking about. Klopp wasn't keen on him as first choice because he wasn't convinced on his fitness. Sturridge delivered every time he played for Liverpool. Sturridge outscored Carroll and offers a lot more beyond goals as well. I think Carroll is better than he is given credit for, but it would have been ludicrous to take him over Sturridge. I do think Sturridge was one of the better players for England, not that it says much and he was wasted out wide unfortunately.

I do agree that his style wasn't particularly different, but I'm not sure Carroll's style would have gotten England anywhere. From previous England games and with Liverpool, there was a tendency for players to be lazy when Carroll was on the pitch and simply boot it up to him and hope he can do something with it. I'm not sure that would have helped. Not to mention that a lot of Carroll's game tends to be penalised at international level.

Will Chelsea vs Liverpool next year be the first game where cameras spend more time on the managers than they do on the football on the pitch. Can see Klopp and Conte clashing for sure.

Think there will be a few games like that, Mourinho and Guardiola, Mourinho and Wenger etc

Crimey wrote:https://twitter.com/LinoTreize/status/747790389898321920

Harry Kane everybody

One pass was almost Iniesta like.

On a different note, did he really ask the ref we will be out if we lose?

Crimey wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Carroll was in good enough form to be taken ahead of Sturridge probably, who Klopp wasnt entirely keen on as first choice and was just a much of a muchness pick. Sturridge is the better player, no doubt, but he offered one goal and nothing else really? Plus, as possibly third choice striker he offered no alternative style where we needed it.

Sturridge was in excellent form at the end of the season, don't know what you're talking about. Klopp wasn't keen on him as first choice because he wasn't convinced on his fitness. Sturridge delivered every time he played for Liverpool. Sturridge outscored Carroll and offers a lot more beyond goals as well. I think Carroll is better than he is given credit for, but it would have been ludicrous to take him over Sturridge. I do think Sturridge was one of the better players for England, not that it says much and he was wasted out wide unfortunately.

I do agree that his style wasn't particularly different, but I'm not sure Carroll's style would have gotten England anywhere. From previous England games and with Liverpool, there was a tendency for players to be lazy when Carroll was on the pitch and simply boot it up to him and hope he can do something with it. I'm not sure that would have helped. Not to mention that a lot of Carroll's game tends to be penalised at international level.

Also pointless having a big man up front when the quality of our crossing was so dreadful....

Stella wrote:

Crimey wrote:https://twitter.com/LinoTreize/status/747790389898321920

Harry Kane everybody

One pass was almost Iniesta like.

On a different note, did he really ask the ref we will be out if we lose?

No.

“I don’t need to apologise for Harry Kane taking a corner,” Roy argued. “Kane is the best striker of the ball we have. He’s the one who gives us the best delivery. We’ve tried many other players and we don’t get the same level of delivery as we get from Harry. We believe the best chance of scoring a goal is by the delivery and you can prove that with research.”

Sorry Roy, I can't defend that.

I can't listen to this clown anymore. The last four years just need to be erased & for us to move on.

Duty281 wrote:“I don’t need to apologise for Harry Kane taking a corner,” Roy argued. “Kane is the best striker of the ball we have. He’s the one who gives us the best delivery. We’ve tried many other players and we don’t get the same level of delivery as we get from Harry. We believe the best chance of scoring a goal is by the delivery and you can prove that with research.”

Sorry Roy, I can't defend that.

No, but every other player from every other team we played could...with ease. Failing that, they just watched the ball sail harmlessly out of play

Scottrf wrote:

Stella wrote:

Crimey wrote:https://twitter.com/LinoTreize/status/747790389898321920

Harry Kane everybody

One pass was almost Iniesta like.

On a different note, did he really ask the ref we will be out if we lose?

No.

Phew!

I wouldn't ever consider Kane to have particularly good technical ability to be honest.

Duty281 wrote:“I don’t need to apologise for Harry Kane taking a corner,” Roy argued. “Kane is the best striker of the ball we have. He’s the one who gives us the best delivery. We’ve tried many other players and we don’t get the same level of delivery as we get from Harry. We believe the best chance of scoring a goal is by the delivery and you can prove that with research.”

Sorry Roy, I can't defend that.

It's criminal. Whether or not Kane is the best striker of the ball, he's also 6'2" and a centre forward. He has to be in the box. If we don't have another single player in the squad who is competent at set pieces, then that in itself is a pretty damning indictment of Hodgson.

Agreed. Roy is just talking out of his rectum there. Was he watching completely different games to the rest of us?

dyrewolfe wrote:Agreed. Roy is just talking out of his rectum there. Was he watching completely different games to the rest of us?

We he did say, "I don't know what I'm doing here." Maybe he thought it was the post Spain/Italy conference

Only a clown would defend Kane taking corners, wonder if Conte and Low will have Pelle and Muller taking them Saturday, you complete embarrassing muppet Hodgson.

DAVE667 wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:Agreed. Roy is just talking out of his rectum there. Was he watching completely different games to the rest of us?

We he did say, "I don't know what I'm doing here." Maybe he thought it was the post Spain/Italy conference

I think he was providing an epitaph to his career as England manager.

I can just about see Kane taking corners if he had magical delivery but even then it would be debatable. In fact, he constantly delivered poor corners (and free kicks) and, at worst, the experiment should have ended after one match. Rooney's delivery was far better.

Hodgson proved to be an extremely poor tournament manager, unable to see the blindingly obvious. Sterling should have been nowhere near the team after the first match - Rashford looked excellent in that position versus Wales and yet didn't get another appearance until it was too late.

England don't have the best squad in the tournament but it's definitely better than any of the three teams we failed to beat. I don't excuse the players for the woeful second half performance on Monday but Hodgson has to take the majority of the blame. Tactically inept.

We talk about technical ability in midfield and attack, but when was the last time we actually had a good footballing CB who looks comfortable with the ball, because frankly I can't remember one, because our CB's are that stiff they play like they've got a rod stuck up their a$$e.

Nico the gman wrote:We talk about technical ability in midfield and attack, but when was the last time we actually had a good footballing CB who looks comfortable with the ball, because frankly I can't remember one, because our CB's are that stiff they play like they've got a rod stuck up their a$$e.

Rio Ferdinand? He was playing fairly regularly only 6-7 years ago.

Crimey wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:We talk about technical ability in midfield and attack, but when was the last time we actually had a good footballing CB who looks comfortable with the ball, because frankly I can't remember one, because our CB's are that stiff they play like they've got a rod stuck up their a$$e.

Rio Ferdinand? He was playing fairly regularly only 6-7 years ago.

Only 6-7 years ago that's a long time, thought Ferdinand was a good defender100% better than anything around at the moment, but wouldn't say he was a good footballing centre half, you look at the Italian defenders over the years, Cannavaro, Nesta, they can bring a ball out of defence and distribute it they look comfortable.

Nico the gman wrote:

Crimey wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:We talk about technical ability in midfield and attack, but when was the last time we actually had a good footballing CB who looks comfortable with the ball, because frankly I can't remember one, because our CB's are that stiff they play like they've got a rod stuck up their a$$e.

Rio Ferdinand? He was playing fairly regularly only 6-7 years ago.

Only 6-7 years ago that's a long time, thought Ferdinand was a good defender100% better than anything around at the moment, but wouldn't say he was a good footballing centre half, you look at the Italian defenders over the years, Cannavaro, Nesta, they can bring a ball out of defence and distribute it they look comfortable.

Rio was at the time the best footballing centre back in the world and was certainly better on the ball than both Cannavaro and Nesta who were probably better pure defenders than he was. Playing the ball out of defence was sort of Ferdinand's modus operandi.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:

Crimey wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:We talk about technical ability in midfield and attack, but when was the last time we actually had a good footballing CB who looks comfortable with the ball, because frankly I can't remember one, because our CB's are that stiff they play like they've got a rod stuck up their a$$e.

Rio Ferdinand? He was playing fairly regularly only 6-7 years ago.

Only 6-7 years ago that's a long time, thought Ferdinand was a good defender100% better than anything around at the moment, but wouldn't say he was a good footballing centre half, you look at the Italian defenders over the years, Cannavaro, Nesta, they can bring a ball out of defence and distribute it they look comfortable.

Rio was at the time the best footballing centre back in the world and was certainly better on the ball than both Cannavaro and Nesta who were probably better pure defenders than he was. Playing the ball out of defence was sort of Ferdinand's modus operandi.

Good player but better than Cannavaro and Nesta with the ball definitely not we're talking about 2 great players not good ones.

Ferdinand was himself a great great defender and being better on the ball than both of them doesn't necessarily mean he was a better player although i'd have him over Nesta every day but not Cannavaro.

I think Ferdinand was our best defender since our greatest, and probably the most like him too.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ferdinand was himself a great great defender and being better on the ball than both of them doesn't necessarily mean he was a better player although i'd have him over Nesta every day but not Cannavaro.

Ferdinand was a superb defender, but Cannavaro was regarded as that good on the ball he wouldn't have looked out of place in midfield, that's why he was named FIFA player of the year and won the Ballon d or.