and this is PRECISELY why i said the next world cup would be in all likelyhood defind by messi or ronaldo. where they were in 2010 is not in question..... but there were reasons there too. england are; a) disorganised, flitting between fashionable players of the day rather than picking a consistent team. b) conversely... and perversely some players no matter how bad still get picked on the basis of their name so you get the worst of both worlds. you get a few senior big names like terry, ferdinand and gerrard, lampard and then whomever happens to be in fashion at the time... c) add in the englsih press out for blood every 5 mins. d) then finally admit rooney or gerrard are not flair players but rather athletic, hard running, powerful players... who yes can pick a pass but on their best day never match the ingenuity of a xavi, fabregas, iniesta, messi, ronaldo, etc.... simply put when england are organised and can defend properly they can get to a QF but in the end we get to the point wehre they come up agaisnt a better side wti ha flair player (portugal, spain,france, brazil etc etc) and get knocked out.
Dave the Gooner - you forgot to mention a last and probably the most important point: English players simply are not good enough at International level
I think individually they are good enough, but we currently lack players with enough up top to organize and run a game.
Fair play, that's some good analysis. As a Welshman looking on, here's my tuppenceworth. I don't think England have underachieved recently, because there are better teams out there, who are much more settled. Greece proved that you don't need a team of superstars to win something, you just need a solid experienced team who know how each other play. England have some fantastic players, but as has been alluded to, a lot of their main strengths are physical, even when you factor in technical ability. The way I look at it (living in Spain has made me compare the two a lot) is if you could make a team including Spanish and English players, how many English players would get in? I reckon Ashley Cole at LB, but in fairness Capdevila normally does alright. Aside from that I'd say Spain are stronger in every position, and what's more the team has been playing the same system with the same players for a long time.
I think Spain is a special case - they basically pick every Spanish Barcelona player and fill in the gaps from elsewhere (mostly Real). They have an obvious understanding from playing with each other every week. It's rare that a country is in a position to do that.
let me turn your point around. 1994: brazil. They had romario who drove the whole thing, there was not much flair otherwise... italy and baggio were it on the other side. 1998... france were a decent outfit. thuram, blanc, etc etc. they had issues up front but were still great and based around zidane (who got sent off then too) they had the flair and the organisation so won it. 2002... brazil.. ronaldo! same story, they were better organised then but had the flair too. 2006. Italy, actually germany had the most flair but klinsmann wasn't the best organiser Italy got through quietly and france still had zidane. If anything perhaps italy prove that england COULD wiin one if they had the luck and organisation o nthier side. 2010. Spain, they had both the organisation and flair. holland were a disgrace in the final. brazil were less than good, so were a lot of other sides as the ball, africa etc didn't really work. so over all... you know what. sides with organisation and flair win it. If you've got the organisation you can go far but england never seem to have that. in the end though getting to the finals, through the groups and into the knockout phases... thats all possible if you've got organisation but you need the flair to take the next step. England are all fit, hard workers, athletic, can pass BUT they simply don't have a playmaker like scholes could have been for instance.
Its as simple as english players are overrated beyond believe by their media, while no english supporters really know anything outside of england and in some way spain, so they automatically think players from diffrent countries such as uraguay must be crapper, when infact their probably better.
Imo it's not the players but the system. We have the players to challenge, but they consistently play much worse for England than for their clubs. The main problem is not that the English style of play is rubbish - it worked fine at Italia 90 and Euro 96, but that it has been eroded by the PL. If you look at the top clubs over the past decade or so, Utd have mainly played a 442, sometimes using a 433 in Europe; Chelsea have used a variation on a 442 diamond or a modified 433; Liverpool have played a narrow 4231 based on solid defence and counter attacking and Arsenal have played a narrow 4231 based on short passing. That's obviously a bit of a generalisation, as formations aren't that rigid, but no two top clubs in England play really similar formations. If you compare that to Spain, Barca and Real both play similar variations of the same situation, Italy have their catenaccio philosophy that still underlies a lot of what their clubs do, and all Brazilian players learn to play the volante and meia system in midfield. So their players tend to fit together better at international level. In contrast, when English players join up with the national team they generally have no clue how to fit together as they are all playing an unfamiliar system. That, to me, is why Gerrard and Lampard could never play well together in the centre - they had been trained to play in completely incompatible ways. Similarly, how can we expect Rooney, a player who performs best with wingers going down the line and crossing, when many of England's best wingers like Walcott, Cole and Young (until this season) were being taught to cut inside by their respective clubs? Until English football gets a single dominant system of play again I think the England national team will continue to under perform.
I wonder if its something to do with a lack of game intelligence in English players. I mean, the first goal they conceded vs Germany was ridiculous, Terry just had a rush of blood and committed himself to a ball he was never going to win, then it bounced over Upson and Klose scored. Would the same thing have happened if Carvalho was playing in Upson's position? Similarly with Gerrard, would he look better with a midfield partnership like Alonso and Mascherano behind him that backs up the play and gives him the platform to perform his magic on, would Rooney look better in a team with an intelligent striker ahead of him like Hernandez instead of playing behind Defoe or Crouch?
Wrong. If English players had the know how and the technique they could play any system given to them, it's not rocket science. Other international teams have changed formation with little to no fuss, but we are stuck on 4-4-2 which we should probably play if our players cannot adapt to 4-5-1. or 4-3-3. The new breed of English player should be able to bridge the gap that the current lot seem clueless to be able to manage. The problem has nothing to do with the formation or manager, the players simply are not good enough or intelligent enough. The players believe the hype and the fans are thick beyond belief.
I have never understood why there are not more England players playing abroad. Players come here to fill their boots with cash leaving gaps abroad but no England player replaces them.
For Donkey's years, other than 2006, the arguably or definitely best side in the tournament won it. The last tournament aside, I don't think we've been as poor as made out. Other than during penalty shootouts.
