Dont agree. There IS a gulf in class between England and Malta - and it was only a case of them not scoring more goals, there were plenty of chances created, just didnt take them.
Anyone that sees the Malta result as good is in my opinion a little blinkered. These are professional players and as professional players they should be able to pass a ball or shoot on target. At times all the players had difficulties with both. As play progressed down the wings there were at times as many as 7 Maltese players around players and no one running into the spaces created. There were a few exceptions of people trying to do things but man.......... most was passing back or square with very few balls put into spaces. In the second half in particular there did not seem to be any urgency. As a consequence it made Malta look better than they were. It is rare I watch England these days as I find them boring and lacking in technical ability and very few play with the passion I would expect from players playing for their country. Sorry that just how I feel about the national team............
I use the comparison purely in terms of my support as a passionate football fan. I'm Southampton born & bred and therefore a Southampton fan. As the above I'm an Englishman born & bred and therefore an England fan. It wasn't really about a 'choice' for either of these teams.
I'm Southampton born & bred and therefore a Southampton fan. I'm an Englishman born & bred and hope England lose every game.
No need to apologise Beddy. I think you pretty much saw a similar game to me. Like yourself I rarely watch England these days as it is usually far too boring. One by-product of that though is that when I do watch I especially notice the differences in overall quality, because if there has been a trend then it's not in tiny fragments, but big chunks. I think it's fair to say that England were no better, quality wise, against Malta than they were against anyone in the Euros. The game and result was different simply because Malta are a weaker team than Iceland, for example. But England ought to be that much better than both, even with the current crop of players, who I make no excuse for because they are very good. England have, for the best part of 30-35 years or more played less than the sum of their parts. No change now.
In all seriousness, I just generally identify England national team, both with the utter ineptitude of the Football Association, and with the wider change in the game of football towards overhyped/overpaid players and the general media jingoistic attitude. I've been to England games in the past, more for the day out/ piss up/ punch up than the game itself. Never had rose tinted specs as we've been bloody awful as a national team since 1970. And don't give me that Euro 96 rubbish. Was an absolute joke earlier this year when some of the media were "celebrating" that "anniversary" of failure. It's anti-football.
Don't get that. I always want England to win...I'd only want England to lose if it affected Saints, but it wouldn't.
I should perhaps make my feelings clear also..........because I never or hardly watch the national team and have strong reservation as to their ability. That does not equate that I would prefer to see them lose. I want them to win every game but just get frustrated with their obvious lack of talent and technique.
Sure. I get that. All I'm saying is that any Saints 'failures' are somewhat more expected. Therefore they don't dissappoint on the same scale. England are expected to deliver since they are a footballing giant. So the fact that they don't, is frankly humiliating. That's why so many people have turned their backs on them.
I am a bit of a hypocrite, I want England to win when there is a Saints player involved, otherwise not too bothered.
Saints have been rubbish before as well, but true fans moan but don't turn their backs. There must be a lot of countries whose fans would like the success that England have in qualifying. Have to be wary not to develop a sense of entitlement. England have won a major trophy once in living memory...yes, we should/could have done better, but we have no right to.
Austria had the second best qualifying record of any team (9 wins from 10), but in the tournament finished last in their group with 1 point. Incidentally, the team with the best qualifying record was England (10 wins from 10).
I haven't turned my back on them. I still support them and want them to win. I just think we are miles behind other "top" nations and think we are better than we really are. By miles.
The talent is there. Look at Lallana, Alli, Barkley, Stones, Shaw, Rashford etc. Bags of talent. The problem is the sack of **** who sits in the manager's seat. Every single one insists on playing Rooney who quite frankly couldn't cut it in the Championship at the moment. We have some terrific players but until Rooney is shown the door he will hold us back.
But that's where you are wrong. The manager is just a tiny, miniscule part of our problems which run from top to bottom.
We have tried enough managers to know there is far more to it than that. You mention lallana as a great talent. Internationals : Lallana 27 appearance 1 goal Tadic 41 appearances 11 goals In terms of ability at international level that says it all We totally over rate many English players Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
