If England were in the Premiership, where would they finish?

Russinating

Russinating

Russinating

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2005
Posts
17,315
Location
Bristol
As per title, if the current England team were in the Premiership, where do you think they would place?

Taking into account playing together week-in week-out, and their own teams not changing (ie an identical copy of Rooney would still be in Utd).

Just an interesting one given the comparison between international and domestic games.
 
I reckon probably around 4th to 7th in line with Spurs and Everton. Some quality individual players available but limited choice in players means that tactically you aren't going to have as optimal team unit as teams with a wider choice.
 
I'm thinking just outside of the Champions league places, behind Chelsea, Arsenal, City and Liverpool.
 
Pigeon_Killer said:
8th.

Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Everton, Liverpool, Spurs and United would all finish ahead of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I have no interest in international football anymore other than having fingers crossed my teams players don't get injured. I don't want to watch a bunch of players play out of position and look out of sorts with each other because they don't play regularly enough together but get a game because they are playing great in another role at their club.

They should let the U21's play the senior squad.
 
relegation battle, and then in the chamiponship the following season. England haven't been anygod since the early 90's. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just hanging on to nostalgic drivel from 1966. The game has evolved over the last 20 years and the standard of English player today is no where good enough. Why do you think they EPL is full of imported players ? Compare that to say Spain where the majority of the players in the top flight Liga teams are all home grown and you get your answer.

Enlish players are generally over hyped, over paid and under talented, and people wonder why the national team performs so badly on the world stage. England have not been a world class team for a long time, its just that we all fail to come to terms with this
 
White and blue kit, fans with unrealistic expectations, over-hyped players, haven't been good since the 60s, based in north London...

Somewhere between 4th and 6th then. :p
 
Haha :D

My guess is they would probably place around 3rd - 7th. MC and Chelsea should finish above them, however I could see them having the potential to get 3rd if nothing else due to a reasonable squad depth.

Almost exactly 10 years ago (I remember because it was during Euro 2004) I remember having an argument with a mate about whether Arsenal were a better team than England, he found it ludicrous that I would even suggest such a thing. To be fair I was trying to argue that Cole and Campbell wouldn't be available for England but even if they could play for both I'd likely still rate Arsenal as the better team.
 
Bottom half.

Outside of the strikers there is no pace.
The midfield has nothing outside of Gerrard.
And the fullbacks are gash.
 
I'd agree. Mid table is about all they'd manage. We seem to have one person in each position that's good but there's always someone else in another team who is much better... And not English!
Aguero>Rooney
Zabaleta>Johnson
Navas>Milner
Kompany>Cahill

Etc etc
 
When people say there is no depth in the squad that may be true compared to the elite clubs but I strongly disagree once you are comparing with mid-table sides (i.e. Stoke, Newcastle, Palace...) England actually have very good depth IMO because in most positions they have at least 3 or 4 average-or-better players. I would take England's second XI over those three teams second XI every day of the week.

Obviously if you apply 25-man squad cap that limits them more than club sides, but they have an effectively infinite supply of youth players
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom