So why don't foreign players have this problem then?
Why England football team under perform?
- Thread starter mo9204
- Start date
So why don't foreign players have this problem then?
Reasons why England aren't amongst the best in the world:
1) 90% of players don't play with any pride and only care about their club
2) Only 1 world class midfielder playing at one time (gerrard/lampard) - Wilshire will be, but not yet
3) Not enough technically gifted players due to the agressive nature of english football
4) Fans prefer to watch club rather than country as we never deliver
and the most important fact....
5) Poor at penalities!!
1) 90% of players don't play with any pride and only care about their club
2) Only 1 world class midfielder playing at one time (gerrard/lampard) - Wilshire will be, but not yet
3) Not enough technically gifted players due to the agressive nature of english football
4) Fans prefer to watch club rather than country as we never deliver
and the most important fact....
5) Poor at penalities!!
Last edited:
We don't underperform we usual perform about right and get into the final 8(ish) and it's only a lack of the lucky break that has stopped us going further on a couple of occasions ie loosing penalty shoot outs yes they are not pure luck but sometimes you'd think we couldn't buy a break!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Whats that got to do with much of anything, a team can still improve, or get worse, winning isn't a prerequisite, everything except for winning is crap, winning makes the team brilliant, nothing inbetween works.
England can improve, drastically, and we can get further, and could win it, we could do worse as well.
The thing I find funny is, managers seem to pick who the FA want, who seem to pick who the fans want by putting all the most popular(and therefore commercially valuable) into the team.
Rooney as a lone striker categorically does not work for England, so rather than alternatives, or really look at where Rooney is most effective(for a hint look at his goal against Fulham where he DROVE UP THE WING with power and pace, not passing the ball), but everyone on here who has suggested a team has picked both the players the last 4-5 England managers would have picked, the players the FA would have picked, and Rooney in a role he's been ineffective in for England for years..... so for all the change and improvement, people are picking the same team, same formation as the manager/FA is anyway.
Does no one else find it hilarious that (apart from me and one two others) Sturridge was widely mocked for the past several years, never once considered, and after like 3 games suddenly he's everyones first choice? Does no one see the main problem the england manager and FA have, fans randomly pick whoever is on form, not for a team, not for cohesiveness, they just pick whoever was good in the last set of league games.... if they lose picking a sensible team they'll be destroyed in the press and by the fans, if they pick the same team 99% of fans would pick and fail... the fans rarely question their own judgement which was, picking the same team.
No England manager has refused to pick Rooney or Gerrard, because if they failed and didn't, the fans would destroy them, simple as that. It doesn't matter if Rooney or Gerrard work, they are picked for fear of losing without them, no matter if we lose playing them anyway.
Why would anyone pick Sturridge after 2-3 games, after not a single person wanting him to play for England for the past 3 years, with most of this forum laughing at his 12mil purchase weeks ago. Rooney's best moments in recent games encompass his strengths, driving forwards with the ball, not dropping deep and trying to be a playmaker, yet people pick him for a role he is ill suited for, one he's failed in for England, one we know he won't play properly leaving a whole upfront.
Why anyone picked Sturridge now(after calling him crap for years) or picking Rooney upfront, and then wonders why England play crap football I don't know, the answer is staring you all in the face.
England can improve, drastically, and we can get further, and could win it, we could do worse as well.
The thing I find funny is, managers seem to pick who the FA want, who seem to pick who the fans want by putting all the most popular(and therefore commercially valuable) into the team.
Rooney as a lone striker categorically does not work for England, so rather than alternatives, or really look at where Rooney is most effective(for a hint look at his goal against Fulham where he DROVE UP THE WING with power and pace, not passing the ball), but everyone on here who has suggested a team has picked both the players the last 4-5 England managers would have picked, the players the FA would have picked, and Rooney in a role he's been ineffective in for England for years..... so for all the change and improvement, people are picking the same team, same formation as the manager/FA is anyway.
Does no one else find it hilarious that (apart from me and one two others) Sturridge was widely mocked for the past several years, never once considered, and after like 3 games suddenly he's everyones first choice? Does no one see the main problem the england manager and FA have, fans randomly pick whoever is on form, not for a team, not for cohesiveness, they just pick whoever was good in the last set of league games.... if they lose picking a sensible team they'll be destroyed in the press and by the fans, if they pick the same team 99% of fans would pick and fail... the fans rarely question their own judgement which was, picking the same team.
No England manager has refused to pick Rooney or Gerrard, because if they failed and didn't, the fans would destroy them, simple as that. It doesn't matter if Rooney or Gerrard work, they are picked for fear of losing without them, no matter if we lose playing them anyway.
Why would anyone pick Sturridge after 2-3 games, after not a single person wanting him to play for England for the past 3 years, with most of this forum laughing at his 12mil purchase weeks ago. Rooney's best moments in recent games encompass his strengths, driving forwards with the ball, not dropping deep and trying to be a playmaker, yet people pick him for a role he is ill suited for, one he's failed in for England, one we know he won't play properly leaving a whole upfront.
Why anyone picked Sturridge now(after calling him crap for years) or picking Rooney upfront, and then wonders why England play crap football I don't know, the answer is staring you all in the face.
Welcome to the blanket dismay of the 2010 world cup throwing out an out of form and injured Rooney on the basis "he's our only good player" to then not do anything.
I can't stand watching England any more, there's so much ambition but no direction of how to get there, just typical fifa tactics of pick the players with the highest ratings and who's in the media. Never going to get anywhere when the manager can't seem to identify a proper style of play that suits the players at his disposal (and given the size of the English league system there are thousands to choose from, not 30 odd from the top 6...).
I had hopes Roy would see this but we got landed with another yes man.
I can't stand watching England any more, there's so much ambition but no direction of how to get there, just typical fifa tactics of pick the players with the highest ratings and who's in the media. Never going to get anywhere when the manager can't seem to identify a proper style of play that suits the players at his disposal (and given the size of the English league system there are thousands to choose from, not 30 odd from the top 6...).
I had hopes Roy would see this but we got landed with another yes man.
I think we've been performing at the level you would expect, as others have said. However, I do think we've just lacked a player (or 2) who can change a game with a bit of magic and the unexpected. Gascoigne was the last one we had. A young Owen maybe before the injuries had it. Beckham had it from dead-ball situations. I think if we had had another 1 or 2 players like that over the past 20 years we would probably have reached a final at some point. We've always been solid - just lacking that little extra. I think that boils down to how kids are taught to play in the UK.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,374
- Location
- London
So what are we doing wrong?
Why do countries with similar/smaller populations have better national football teams (Spain, Netherlands, Italy Germany etc.)?
How have England underperformed? They usually get beaten by better/equal teams and reach the last 8. When England were last world beaters they reached the semis and the last time before that they won it.
As for mistaking going into a tournament believing you can win it and objectively deciding whether a team underperformed are two different things.
Any team which are in the top 10 in the world shouldn't be going into a tournament thinking they can't win it. It isn't the sole expectation of Spain.
As for mistaking going into a tournament believing you can win it and objectively deciding whether a team underperformed are two different things.
Any team which are in the top 10 in the world shouldn't be going into a tournament thinking they can't win it. It isn't the sole expectation of Spain.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
This, i've referred to it before, but watch the England Algeria WC match, they made us look real bad.
We've won as many World Cups as Spain and more than the Netherlands.
Italy and Germany have certainly overachieved - although two of Italy's wins are surrounded by match-fixing allegations.
I think the problem with England is that we've got an island nation mentality. We've traditionally been slow to pick up on advances in the game that have been developed abroad - tactics, training methods, even styles of refereeing.
I don't think it's coincidence that our two foreign managers both had a flawless qualification record for major tournaments. Home-grown managers since Alf Ramsey (with the exception of Terry Venables) have all done poorly.
Over the last 10-15 years that I have watched us play I feel our biggest issue is that we're afraid to lose and as such the creative/skilful players feel like they have to hold back a bit.
There is also the problem of the actual team getting picked in that they pick technically the best 11 players and try and fit them into a team as opposed to picking the best team with not necessarily the best players (if that makes sense). The biggest case in point is the Lampard/Gerrard situation where you have 2 top players but unfortunately they play the same role and so one always ends up playing out of position and therefore underperforms.
I like the way the current team is heading, however I don't think we'll ever be good enough to get passed the last 8, let alone win a tournament.
There is also the problem of the actual team getting picked in that they pick technically the best 11 players and try and fit them into a team as opposed to picking the best team with not necessarily the best players (if that makes sense). The biggest case in point is the Lampard/Gerrard situation where you have 2 top players but unfortunately they play the same role and so one always ends up playing out of position and therefore underperforms.
I like the way the current team is heading, however I don't think we'll ever be good enough to get passed the last 8, let alone win a tournament.
I agree with Schumi84, I honestly think the main problem with the England team and have been since 1966 is pressure, everyone thinks they have a chance to win. The media do an excellent job of building them up and knocking them down again.
as mentioned those 4 mentioned teams can retain possession, move the ball pretty well and have decent technique.
where germany are concerned, there FA had the foresight to adopt a strategy that was originally an english created idea iirc, after a poor performance in one of the championships.
our FA don't have a clue how to move forward and are unwilling to change, while there in place we won't improve.
as far as i'm concerned, there biggest mistake was years back when they wouldn't think of allowing brian clough the chance to have a go.
he got notts forest to perform well above expectations, and would have picked players on ability not on which club they played for, which is part of the problem now a days, and definitely wouldn't have put up with the prima donna idiots that think there better than they are.
as for formation/players:
-----------Hart-------------
walker-Cahill-Jagielka-Baines
----------Parker------------
----Wilshere--Lampard------
---------rooney------------
------defoe--walcott-------
Last edited:
ouch that team would get smashed down the sides poor walker with no protection what so ever and baines who boms on getting a bit of cover from Walcott no thanks.
walcott generally doesn't offer cover though from what i've seen.
i looked at playing 4-3-3 for cover out wide, but we don't have the players to do the job.
more to the point we don't have players intelligent enough to read the game and know when its safe to bomb forward, at least with walker/baines/cole they generally stay wide, on a number of occasions i've seen johnson move into midfield which leaves even more space out wide.
a back 3 of cahill/Jagielka with parker in front should be enough with more cover offered by the midfield pair if required when the full backs move up.
I disagree, I look at the England team (or at least, players who have some degree of involvement) and don't regard them all as World Class:
Cahill
Smalling
Cleverley
Walcott
Welbeck
I know the term "World Class" is a bit subjective but I doubt many would have all of them in their list of WC players.