Where you ACTUALLY see England finishing in the WC?

[ASSE]Hinchy;16120642 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8557124.stm

What is it about our press that wants the national team to fail? They seem to be doing as much as they possibly can to cause unrest.


My feelings entirely. I may be wrong but you never the overseas tabloids making such a fuss over their national sides like we seem to. The Germans, for example, appear to be keeping low key and let the Football itself do the talking. Does my head in every WC and EC.

Back on topic, personally, I feel that they can reach the Semi's
 
Well, if you look at the first match in Euro2004, we started with players from the likes of Man City (17th), Everton (16th) and Spurs (14th), with subs being used from Birmingham (10th) and Villa (6th). Man City, Villa and Spurs are currently all very good sides challenging for european places (all in the top 6 in terms of average points per game), there is no shame in fielding players from those sides if you were happy to have players playing in tournaments from sides who could at best be very generously described as 'mediocre midtable' back in 2004.

Aye and we lost that first game, and I guess that proves my point because, well, they didn't win it did they?

As said though this was only half my reasoning, the other being that England don't seemingly have a 5th gear they click into, like other seemingly 'weak on paper' that have ended up doing well.

I've put the emphasis on the clear majority of those players (particularly first teamers) being from Champion's League regulars, with years of that extra experience required under their belts to go far in tournaments. Nothing whatsoever about where they're now in their domestic league. There are fewer now then there were back then so in my eyes England are less likely to win it. Who knows, back in 2004, they might have done better had it not been for our luck in penalty shoot outs.
 
Sorry, I don't see how the fact that we lost a game proves your point that England's best time was 2004 :)

Surely if what you say is true, that the key is fielding CL regulars in the first team, and that our best time was in 2004, then said 2004 team should have been packed with CL regulars instead of fielding players from teams that weren't even close to challenging for the UEFA cup spots that year?

What I'm driving at is that you can't be correct on both counts. Either 2004 was our best time, or fielding CL regulars in the first team is the key to success. Looking at the evidence, they are kinda mutually exclusive.

The thing is, for many years the majority of the England first team has been made up from top clubs, I mean if you look back at the squads over the years you've typically had around 8-9 starters from the big boys. Trying to extend that out and never field any players from 'lesser' clubs would be folly IMO (not that I'm suggesting that you've put that forward), as then you are shutting the door to true talent that maybe for what ever reason hasn't moved on to another club yet. If we look at your chosen year, 2004, Wayne Rooney burst onto the European scene in Euro2004, but based on the club he played for he never would have got a look in. Likewise in the mid-late 90s Spurs, who have never played CL football, had a few decent Englishmen worthy of a seat on the plane like Campbell, Sheringham, Ferdinand, Anderton etc.

I guess you could say, it's a bit of a chicken&egg type situation. Are England having problems because they aren't picking players from the CL clubs, or is it more a case of, the CL clubs aren't playing enough Englishmen regularly, because they simply aren't good enough?

Take 2004 for example, the best team that season was Arsenal, who had only 2 England internationals (Cole & Campbell). At the time I remember having an 'argument' with a friend over my view that Arsenal were a better side than England.

Fact is if you look at some of the players we've taken to tournaments, can you really say that they would be playing week-in, week-out at CL clubs? Darius Vassell? Theo Walcott? Ian Walker? Emile Heskey? Now, this DOES kinda server to prove your point, in the sense that we've got mediocre players from lesser clubs. But, what is the alternative? The 'big' clubs don't normally have a huge roster of quality English players who aren't in the squad (unless they are retired).

So I think in one sense it is unrealistic to expect us to go with a squad packed full of CL regulars, simply because the CL clubs want to play a side based on skill, not passports. Let's have a look at the squads:

Arsenal:
0 English starters, couple of first teamers like Walcott, Campbell and Eastmond that aren't really good enough (at the moment) to be playing every week for either club or country. Gibbs has a bad injury and Wilshere is out on loan.

Total so far: 0

Liverpool:
Carragher is retired, so that just leaves Gerrard as the only Englishman in the starting XI.

Total so far: 1

Manchester United:
Brown, Ferdinand, Carrick and Rooney. Getting better. Scholes is retired, Neville is past it and Hargreaves is a crock. The likes of Foster and Wellbeck don't get enough CL appearances.

Total so far: 5

Chelsea:
Terry, A.Cole, Lampard, J.Cole. Bearing in mind Ashley is out injured and Joe is struggling to win back a place in the starting XI, so I'm being quite generous here. Mancienne is out on loan so not playing CL football, too soon for Sturridge.

total so far: 9

So basically there simply aren't enough Englishmen featuring regularly in the CL for us to even be able to change the approach to squad selection, OK so we've got Beckham as well but he doesn't even play until the knockout stages.

Worth bearing in mind that, in my opinion, there are some English players at non-CL clubs, who would be able to get in their teams. So we shouldn't worry about how many players there are from CL clubs. Why overlook Barry, he's good enough now, he doesn't need an Arsenal shirt to prove it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom