International Stuff

PleaseNotPoll said:
Tempting to make this an off-topic thread, but I'll stick this here for all of our international football needs.
There's already been a number of games, including the USA coming from behind to beat Peru 2-1.
Argentina smashed seven past Bolivia, while Scotland failed to score in Georgia, losing to a solitary goal.
Ireland and other Ireland won their qualifiers against the minnows, putting 3 and 4 past Gibraltar and the Faroes.
France narrowly beat Portugal and an Eriksen-less Denmark drew a blank against Albania.

Where did our players manage to make an impact?
Yedlin started for the US and played the whole game, despite them making six subs.
Lamela was picked for Argentina, while Messi only made the bench. Classy! <whistle>
Lloris kept a clean sheet for France.
I've probably missed others.
Click to expand...
Yedlin played great all around. He was instrumental in the build up to Altidore's second goal. There is not a doubt in my mind, had he come on instead of Lamela, against Stoke, we would have taken all three.
 
I have just seen on the BBC that Rooney has scored 5 against San Marino over the years. They used to say that Crouch's goals didn't count as they were only against weaker opposition! Also, how many of Charlton's goals were penalties? Actually I don't know why we are having this discussion, comparing a legend against a bellend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spur of the Moment, The Changing Man and Citizen Kane
All this talk about Rooney breaking Charlton's record ignores something quite important: he's only scored one World Cup goal.

To put that into perspective, Rooney has played in three tournaments and managed as many World Cup goals as Darren Anderton did in four World Cup matches.
 
humanbeingincroydon said:
All this talk about Rooney breaking Charlton's record ignores something quite important: he's only scored one World Cup goal.

To put that into perspective, Rooney has played in three tournaments and managed as many World Cup goals as Darren Anderton did in four World Cup matches.
Click to expand...
To put it another way, he's on a par with those other English-born goalscoring predators, Matt Holland and Gary Breen.
Robbie Keane's scored three times as many goals in the finals, despite only playing in four games.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
To put it another way, he's on a par with those other English-born goalscoring predators, Matt Holland and Gary Breen.
Robbie Keane's scored three times as many goals in the finals, despite only playing in four games.
Click to expand...
Verts has scored as many World Cup goals as Rooney has.

Come to think of it, Georgios Samaras and Peter Odemwingie have scored as many World Cup goals as Wayne Rooney has...
 
  • Like
Reactions: littleDinosaurLuke
In fact there are only 17 players with more than one World Cup goal for England.
Of those, only Gerrard has played in a WC after 2006.

After Lineker with 10, Hurst is next with 5, then Charlton and Owen with 4 (3 of Charlton's coming in 1966 as did all of Roger Hunt's 3).
Beckham & Gerrard 3 ,Lofthouse 3 (all in 1954) and Platt 3 (all in 1990).

These 9 players aside, next best is two. Of the 8 with two, only Shearer could be considered a modern day player.

So '66 and Lineker apart, the number of World Cup goals scored is hardly a measure of how good players were for England - especially players from Rooney's era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_goalscorers#England
 
Good points Luke. I actually think that we overestimate the quality of English players compared to their foreign counterparts too often. I wonder if the pattern you've highlighted there of England scorers at WCs (and Euros/continental competitions too actually) is repeated in other 'top-tier' footballing nations?

Take Walcott as an example of the current crop of overhyped players, although you could take a few examples really - having a quick player who can score a few goals from a wide position is nothing new, truly exceptional or in any way unique to English football but he's always touted as this magical trump card that we can bring off the bench in the dying moments of a close game who can snatch us a win, as if pretty much every footballing nation, the likes of San Marino aside, don't have a similar player and haven't come across his type before.

In fact I think that our perception of the quality and stature of English players and clubs is still blurred by the fact that we too often view English football in a bubble, both at a personal level and a club level. That is why we always end up overestimating our chances at the tournaments - because many other countries have had key players and promising youngsters over the years that have at least been the calibre of ours, but English football has too often retreated into the hype spun around the PL and dismissed those playing abroad as being lesser.

I'm not saying that we haven't had a lot of good players over the years (whether we've always had good teams is another question) but I am saying that often we're led to believe by the English football hype machine that these good players are truly outstanding individuals on the international stage, whereas in reality other nations have had players just as good at times and done more with them. The same is true of our clubs in European competition IMO.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
In fact there are only 17 players with more than one World Cup goal for England.
Of those, only Gerrard has played in a WC after 2006.

After Lineker with 10, Hurst is next with 5, then Charlton and Owen with 4 (3 of Charlton's coming in 1966 as did all of Roger Hunt's 3).
Beckham & Gerrard 3 ,Lofthouse 3 (all in 1954) and Platt 3 (all in 1990).

These 9 players aside, next best is two. Of the 8 with two, only Shearer could be considered a modern day player.

So '66 and Lineker apart, the number of World Cup goals scored is hardly a measure of how good players were for England - especially players from Rooney's era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_goalscorers#England
Click to expand...

It usually helps if you at least qualify. Something England failed to do between 1970 - 1982
 
Can somebody tell Radio 5 that, while it was funny for about two minutes when somebody told Robbie Savage his opinions were valued, that was a long time ago.

Elsewhere, the Dutch won't be qualifying automatically - they're 3-0 down to Turkey in stoppage time, while the second-placed Czechs are leading 2-1 against Latvia.
 
Last edited:
Wales nearly nicked it again at the death. Coleman's got to get his head around the fact that they're not minnows anymore. It's still too defence first, he needs to commit to attack and trust the defence to get the job done, Israel were there for the taking but with 3 at the back and too much possession in useless areas they didn't look dangerous enough.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
In fact there are only 17 players with more than one World Cup goal for England.
Of those, only Gerrard has played in a WC after 2006.

After Lineker with 10, Hurst is next with 5, then Charlton and Owen with 4 (3 of Charlton's coming in 1966 as did all of Roger Hunt's 3).
Beckham & Gerrard 3 ,Lofthouse 3 (all in 1954) and Platt 3 (all in 1990).

These 9 players aside, next best is two. Of the 8 with two, only Shearer could be considered a modern day player.

So '66 and Lineker apart, the number of World Cup goals scored is hardly a measure of how good players were for England - especially players from Rooney's era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_goalscorers#England
Click to expand...

How many England strikers have gone to and started most games in 3 or more World Cups in that time though?

There's no getting around it, Rooney's goalscoring record is more a testament to the amount of games he's played than his performances. If you play over 100 games these days the majority are going to be against poor sides.

You can see a list of who he's played against and scored against here: http://www.englandstats.com/players.php?pid=1126

A handful against good sides or better, a decent number against decent sides and the vast majority against fodder.

He'd had his moments and looked a real talent for a few years but he's been living off that since and simply doesn't deserve his place in the side, the goals and performances simply haven't been there when it matters.

I've got nothing against Rooney, his performance some years ago in the 3-1 at the Lane remains the best performance I've seen live from an opposition player. But he, like Lampard and Gerrard, are held in far too higher regard for what amounts to pretty average international careers. Their great moments have been few and far between and they've never deserved their status as an automatic starter. There are plenty of nations that acheive much more than the sum of their parts, this idea that there aren't players capable of replacing them is rubbish. You don't need the star players, you need a balanced team, a team that actually performs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen Kane
Yid Vicious said:
How many England strikers have gone to and started most games in 3 or more World Cups in that time though?

There's no getting around it, Rooney's goalscoring record is more a testament to the amount of games he's played than his performances. If you play over 100 games these days the majority are going to be against poor sides.

You can see a list of who he's played against and scored against here: http://www.englandstats.com/players.php?pid=1126

A handful against good sides or better, a decent number against decent sides and the vast majority against fodder.

He'd had his moments and looked a real talent for a few years but he's been living off that since and simply doesn't deserve his place in the side, the goals and performances simply haven't been there when it matters.

I've got nothing against Rooney, his performance some years ago in the 3-1 at the Lane remains the best performance I've seen live from an opposition player. But he, like Lampard and Gerrard, are held in far too higher regard for what amounts to pretty average international careers. Their great moments have been few and far between and they've never deserved their status as an automatic starter. There are plenty of nations that acheive much more than the sum of their parts, this idea that there aren't players capable of replacing them is rubbish. You don't need the star players, you need a balanced team, a team that actually performs.
Click to expand...

The thing is, YV, England have always been a mid-table team in international terms. '66 was the exception, but home advantage played a huge part. Rooney has played in an era when England have been particularly uncompetitive at major tournaments despite qualifying easily in the main. England are good enough to beat the minnows, but few teams are pushovers these days. Most are well coached now and are set up to be hard to beat. Occasionally (like yesterday), England will score a hatful of goals, but high scoring internationals are a rarity these days. in the 1960-61 season England got 9 v Scotland & Luxembourg, 8 v Mexico, 5 v NI & Wales and 4 v Spain. They scored 47 goals in 9 games, but they weren't an all-conquering team. They lost 1-3 to Austria that year. Greaves got three hat-tricks ( v Lux, Scotland & NI). There is no doubt he was a great player, but his goals came very easily against this kind of opposition in open games where high scores were not uncommon. And he didn't face ten men behind the ball all the time like England often do now.

Rooney has done as much as anyone could expect him to do. And has done it over a long period of time. He has scored consistently when it has mattered in qualifying, but like all other England players of his generation, he's been found lacking in tournaments against teams who are strong in defence, good at retaining possession and are far better equipped to cope with England's hustle and bustle game than they used to be. I don't disagree that his international career has been average - but he's played in an average team. His personal goalscoring record is exceptional though. It's taken over 40 years for a player to match 49 goals, which proves that. No other current player has more than 13 goals. The only player to come remotely close in the last 25 years is Owen with 40 - and he was a very good player for a period.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
The thing is, YV, England have always been a mid-table team in international terms. '66 was the exception, but home advantage played a huge part. Rooney has played in an era when England have been particularly uncompetitive at major tournaments despite qualifying easily in the main. England are good enough to beat the minnows, but few teams are pushovers these days. Most are well coached now and are set up to be hard to beat. Occasionally (like yesterday), England will score a hatful of goals, but high scoring internationals are a rarity these days. in the 1960-61 season England got 9 v Scotland & Luxembourg, 8 v Mexico, 5 v NI & Wales and 4 v Spain. They scored 47 goals in 9 games, but they weren't an all-conquering team. They lost 1-3 to Austria that year. Greaves got three hat-tricks ( v Lux, Scotland & NI). There is no doubt he was a great player, but his goals came very easily against this kind of opposition in open games where high scores were not uncommon. And he didn't face ten men behind the ball all the time like England often do now.

Rooney has done as much as anyone could expect him to do. And has done it over a long period of time. He has scored consistently when it has mattered in qualifying, but like all other England players of his generation, he's been found lacking in tournaments against teams who are strong in defence, good at retaining possession and are far better equipped to cope with England's hustle and bustle game than they used to be. I don't disagree that his international career has been average - but he's played in an average team. His personal goalscoring record is exceptional though. It's taken over 40 years for a player to match 49 goals, which proves that. No other current player has more than 13 goals. The only player to come remotely close in the last 25 years is Owen with 40 - and he was a very good player for a period.
Click to expand...

If England are average then what are you even arguing his case for? If ever proof was needed of the uselessness of Rooney's [soon to be] record it's the fact that his goal against San Marino equates to the same as Lineker's late leveller against Germany in the World Cup semis, or Owen's opener against Argentina in the quarters. This is why people see it as no more than a number on a sheet of paper.

As you've helpfully pointed out, only 17 players have scored more than 1 World Cup goal for England, and who are they? Well they're the players Rooney has passed(is passing) on his way to a record goal tally, plus a few others. If Rooney wants to be in the top bracket with the best, surely he has to be performing at the top level? Currently he's not done that despite the same opportunities, or more, than the others.
 
Iceland are the smallest nation ever to qualify for a major cham̱pionship. I think the next smallest country is 4X bigger. It’s the biggest thing to happen in Iceland since Snorri Sturlusson was knifed in his bed by Icelandic nationalists for selling out to the King of Denmark. 1% of Iceland went to the Netherlands to see them complete their double over the Dutch. Northern Ireland have the chance to qualify for their first Euros today. I’m really enjoying this, since I have a connection to all three countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back