I don't think its as bad as we all make out, we just need to realise we are not a top class team. The sooner we realise this the better, we have no god given right to be one of the best teams. We are a decent international team, that's about it. Let's not get too down when we do get beat by a top class team. I do think we should of played Vardy and used the pace he has to Counter attack Spain. England do remind me of City when we play slow penetrating football it doesn't work, when we play with some tempo we look ten times better.
that's a ridiculous assessment and attitude. it's like saying that spurs are utter crap. they're currently 5th out of tens of thousands of teams affiliated to the fa. england are ranked around 10th out of more than 200 fifa teams. just because they're not as good as the few teams ranked higher it doesn't make them "utterly toss".
They are utterly toss. It's an opinion, in the same way that yours is an opinion, sadly for you, I don't share your opinion. It doesn't make my opinion any less valid - the national side simply aren't very good, rankings by FIFA are a nonsense, you only have to go on a run of beating mediocre opposition to move up the ranking chart - Switzerland or Austria (ranked 10th and 11th) for example - they've won **** all ever versus the football powerhouse that is Brazil 5 time World Cup winners currently ranked 9th. The ranking system is absolute bollocks - so not really a very firm footing with which to base your argument. Belgium are currently ranked ahead of current World Cup holders Germany. Utter ****e.
I think we would be better with a modern manager not the dinosaur we have now but as it stands I agree we are crap. Not looking forward to watching Rooneys next no-show at the Euros, it's going to be the same old...
The French Football Federation (FFF) has announced that the planned friendly match with England at Wembley stadium in London will go ahead. “After discussions which established there is no special hazard preventing the holding of the match, we have decided to hold the fixture,” said a FFF spokesman. The situation may change, he said, if the Football Association in the UK were to take a different view.
I hope it does go ahead, they can't let the murderers win. Brave and correct decision from the French.
are you always this rubbish at argument? you compare a team with the two teams that have won the most world cups? on your basis, only two of the 210 national teams would not be crap. is that your argument? there are only two good teams and the other 208 are therefore crap? england may not play the way you like and they may not always play to their strengths, but your argument is merely that they are not as good as brazil or germany and are therefore rubbish. they're better than 95% of the other national teams. that is a fact. it's not an opinion, it's maths. if they were in the top 5% of the football+premier league, they'd be top 5 in the premier league. you don't get to be top 5 by being crap.
At what point did I use just Brazil and Germany? Did you not read the bit about Switzerland or Austria? It's an illustration that the ranking argument in your response to MY post is irrelevant. The ranking system is somewhat flawed, though I guess that has escaped your attention. The national squad is hopeless, we've won nothing since '66 and rarely actually looked like winning anything. We play awful football and we have someone in charge who plays a style of football that is dreadful and archaic. If you can't see that then I'm genuinely sorry for you. We have had a collection of players over a period of time that collectively have failed to live up to expectations, not just under Hodgson, but also his predecessors. We are poor, very poor, regardless of you thinking we are some mythical footballing super power. I do look forward to your response. Yawn. You do seem to be suffering from a case of 'Blind Faith' it is treatable, though you do have a severe case. This is a free consultation by Dr GLP.
It's funny how some will subscribe to that bullshit yet mention anything remotely similar about Hull City or Steve Bruce and they'll fly off the handle. Hypocrites and turds.
i don't have a case of blind faith and i'm not ignorant of the fact that the england team's football could and should be far better and that there is a recent history of england players not living up to expectations or even to their league form. i'm also aware that the fa have long had a bad habit of appointing wrong managers. i rarely watch england matches because they're boring. but they win far more than they lose and on the international spectrum, they're pretty good. ranking systems are inherently flawed. okay, so you were comparing austria and switzerland, not england, with brazil. but you said the positions of those two teams was ridiculous because they've never won anything and brazil have. it shows you don't understand the rankings - they cover recent form, admittedly imperfectly, over the last four years. in the last four years - in fact, even in the last 12 years - austria and switzerland have won exactly as many world cups as brazil. brazil have lost four of their last ten tournament matches (compared to crappy old england who have lost four tournament matches since 2007). and why shouldn't belgium be ranked above "current world cup holders germany"? germany have lost 5 of 15 games since becoming world champions. belgium have lost 5 in their last 38. it's about FORM, not historic hardware. switzerland's improvement in the rankings has not been due to "a run of beating mediocre opposition". they've been gradually increasing their ranking position since 1998. nor has austria's - theirs was more to do with a particularly bad run prior to november 2011 no longer being included in the calculations. my view of england's place in world football is realistic, unlike yours. england have an average position of 10th in fifa's rankings. so, typically, the rankings say there are nine better teams and about 200 worse ones. and that puts england way above average in terms of national teams. there are 200 countries/territories/whatever out there who'd love to be as "poor, very poor" "utterly toss" and "embarrassing" as england. i expect to beat worse teams and lose to better ones, whereas you appear to think it's an embarrassment and a failure to lose against better sides. if you can think of a better way to rank teams, i'd like to hear about it. fifa need the rankings for seedings and whatever other uses they have.
you can tell someone who prefers the qpr method of deciding matches on grace, technique, spectacularity, prettiness of play, etc, rather than wins and points.
So it is impossible for both good football and results to work together? How the **** do you explain teams like Spain, Brazil, Germany and Argentina then?
