Walcott is pacy, not a great player/passer. Sturridge again, effective but not a technical player. Lampard needs a lot of help around him to look good, Gerrard is playing deep these days - sometimes his long passes come off, sometimes they go into row z.
Wiltshire needs to play with players who have great movement around him - which makes it difficult for him to play with the likes of Gerrard/Lampard/Milner/etc.
I don't rate them individually anywhere near as highly as you do. They need to play to a system they're used to - English players are very rigid I find.
Eh?
How can you say that?
Hes one of the most technically gifted English players out there, he has tecnical ability in abundance.
Take a look at his goal against Villa or just watch him for 1 game.
That team is not that good. If they were a PL team they would improve with being together all the time, but they wouldn't be contenders.
We have been putting in these type of games for years, with a few better ones thrown in.
The 1990 WC was as close as we've come since 1966, but we were dreadful in the group stages, and Robson was under all manner of pressure, but he is now considered a national treasure. The team emerged through accident to do what it did later, and the players then were far superior to what we have now.
The argument that they should be able to pas to each has been around as long as I can remember really, because we've never been as good as most decent countries at that skill.
Trying to portray the PL as a passing heaven is also hogwash. Most of the games are not played with that level of skill at all.
You are right its woeful tbh, we do have some good players though.
well there's the problem. if more English players were mastering the basics, would there not be more of them getting into the league? the problem is that they're not good enough, not that there aren't enough of them
this England team would be exactly the same if there wasn't a single foreigner in the league, and probably even worse.
the increase in foreign players has led to a significant increase in the quality and profile of the English league. if there aren't enough English players able to play in it, then surely the solution is for them to raise their own standard rather than lowering the standard?
There is a bigger issue in society as to why we don't have the numbers of quality players we used to get.
However, the last 30 odd years people have been slagging off England on a regular basis, apart from the odd games where it all comes together.
The current squad is not as good as most we've had, but we've hardly enjoyed unbridled success at international level. For many years club football as come first, and that is increasing all the time.
I cant see much sign of improvement, because kids don't grow up playing football the way they used to do, which gave us larger pools to choose from, and coaching of kids has not been done in the right way for years.
For people to blame Hodgson is stupid, because the same people have been blaming every manager for decades. It's the way it goes.
Hes one of the most technically gifted English players out there, he has tecnical ability in abundance.
Take a look at his goal against Villa or just watch him for 1 game.
I disagree. You have to look at his all round play with the ball at his feet, not just the occasional moments where he manages to put it together.
I think this is the problem in a nutshell. 'Consistent' high level of technical skill - something English players can't match foreigners for. You watch any player long enough you'll eventually see something impressive from them, it doesn't really prove anything.
It's the overall success rate of all actions with the ball that English players fall behind on.
There is a bigger issue in society as to why we don't have the numbers of quality players we used to get.
However, the last 30 odd years people have been slagging off England on a regular basis, apart from the odd games where it all comes together.
The current squad is not as good as most we've had, but we've hardly enjoyed unbridled success at international level. For many years club football as come first, and that is increasing all the time.
I cant see much sign of improvement, because kids don't grow up playing football the way they used to do, which gave us larger pools to choose from, and coaching of kids has not been done in the right way for years.
For people to blame Hodgson is stupid, because the same people have been blaming every manager for decades. It's the way it goes.
that's all well and good, but the answer isn't to increase the pool of eligible players, it's to improve the quality. with the players available, England should be better than only being able to plod through against Ukraine and Montenegro. how large are their pools? significantly smaller than England's, for sure.
I disagree. You have to look at his all round play with the ball at his feet, not just the occasional moments where he manages to put it together.
I think this is the problem in a nutshell. 'Consistent' high level of technical skill - something English players can't match foreigners for. You watch any player long enough you'll eventually see something impressive from them, it doesn't really prove anything.
It's the overall success rate of all actions with the ball that English players fall behind on.
I watch Sturridge every week, i don't mean to be patronising but do you even know what technical abilty is?
'Sturridge is not a technical player' words fail me.
I disagree. You have to look at his all round play with the ball at his feet, not just the occasional moments where he manages to put it together.
I think this is the problem in a nutshell. 'Consistent' high level of technical skill - something English players can't match foreigners for. You watch any player long enough you'll eventually see something impressive from them, it doesn't really prove anything.
It's the overall success rate of all actions with the ball that English players fall behind on.
In fairness, I think with Sturridge, since the latter part of last season onwards has been showing what he is capable of.
He's thought of as a poacher, but if you watch him over a dozen games you'll start to get an idea of his all round play. His ability to beat a man, play some very clever and splitting passes and his excellent movement on and especially off the ball are all things often missed when his reputation as a poacher often proceeds him.
I think he's a player who, unless you watch week in week out, you won't fully see how much he does and how good a player he is starting to become. His stats of 20 games, 16 goals and 6 assists show that he is playing a very active part in the team all round.
So the performance and the result are equally important then.
Given your logic that we performed poorly it would probably prove inconvenient for you to accept it was a good result.
except England didn't win, so I'm not sure how that fits into the point you're trying to make.
it was a decent result, nothing more. you can cite the fact that it still keeps qualification in their hands etc, but the fact they're so desperately trying to avoid defeat at this late stage is down to performances like this in the first place.
a good result would've been winning. 0-0 (or not losing) would've been a good result for a team for whom qualification was the height of their ambition, I wouldn't expect that to be England's idea of a good result in a group containing San Marino, Moldova, Poland, Montenegro, and Ukraine.
except England didn't win, so I'm not sure how that fits into the point you're trying to make.
it was a decent result, nothing more. you can cite the fact that it still keeps qualification in their hands etc, but the fact they're so desperately trying to avoid defeat at this late stage is down to performances like this in the first place.
a good result would've been winning. 0-0 (or not losing) would've been a good result for a team for whom qualification was the height of their ambition, I wouldn't expect that to be England's idea of a good result in a group containing San Marino, Moldova, Poland, Montenegro, and Ukraine.
Watch out Pee he will run off to the teacher if you disagree with him or use a certain 'tone'.
Obviously his opinion being completely wrong shouldn't be questioned or even come into the conversation.
except England didn't win, so I'm not sure how that fits into the point you're trying to make.
it was a decent result, nothing more. you can cite the fact that it still keeps qualification in their hands etc, but the fact they're so desperately trying to avoid defeat at this late stage is down to performances like this in the first place.
a good result would've been winning. 0-0 (or not losing) would've been a good result for a team for whom qualification was the height of their ambition, I wouldn't expect that to be England's idea of a good result in a group containing San Marino, Moldova, Poland, Montenegro, and Ukraine.
We will have to agree to disagree. 0-0 maintains our destiny in our own hands. They have a pretty good home record.
Unfortunately though comments like that are completely predictable and come over as easy pickings after what was a fairly disjointed performance.
It makes it rather easy to forget that there are also occasions where England do play well and pass it neatly and we shouldn't be speaking as if it never happens, or conversely, as if it happens all the time.
If we were as shit as some people are making out we would not have qualified for all bar two major tournaments since 1984 and with very impressive records on occasion.
My view on other international sides (perhaps also a trite one) is simply that they possess greater levels of technical ability and awareness of where to be and how to play.
This is why those countries tend to end up at the business end of tournaments whereas England hit their ceiling as a team that is likely to get out of their group at best.
In the overall scheme of things I find it confusing that people think we could be doing so much better when our previous performances with apparently stronger squads don't really offer an evidence base for taking such a view.
I agree with your first point there. For some reason we have fallen behind in terms of technical ability. But this didn't happen suddenly, it's been a gradual decline over the past 30/40 years.
We still produce a few very good individuals in every generation of players who appear to buck the trend, but not enough. The question is...why ? And I've never heard a convincing answer.
I've noticed over the years that even very moderate foreign sides have players who are more comfortable on the ball than their English counterparts. Is there something fundamentally wrong with our coaching system ?
Without the simple basics, which should be second nature to any professional footballer, we will never be able to play a possession game and start stroking the ball around with confidence.
As someone else said earlier, I don't expect us to suddenly find the likes of Iniesta, Xavi or Messi. But on the other hand, we should be capable of producing an England team that plays with a little style and flair.
I disagree with the second point. I think we should have expected more previously, and we should still be expecting more today.
I'm trying not to be jingoistic, but we should be among the elite footballing nations. It's by far the most popular sport in the country, The Premiership is among the top 2/3 leagues in the world with a massive following worldwide.
Logically, Spain, England, Germany and Italy from Europe, along with Brazil and Argentina from South America should dominate world football.
France have done well, but football has nowhere near the same following as it does in this country. Holland always punch above their weight, and there will always be other countries challenging from time to time..Belgium have a remarkable group of players currently for example. But England should always be up there for as long as football remains our true national game..in my opinion. The question remains, what are we doing wrong ?
do you not think that with better performances through the group, they'd be well past the stage where they needed to "keep things in their own hands"?
I don't know why you ask, but not particularly, 15 points from the first 7 games is hardly disastrous, nor is 16 from 8 if the last two games are at home and are perfectly winnable.
I don't know why you ask, but not particularly, 15 points from the first 7 games is hardly disastrous, nor is 16 from 8 if the last two games are at home and are perfectly winnable.
We've only beaten Moldova and San Marino in this table so far. Think about that.
I disagree with the second point. I think we should have expected more previously, and we should still be expecting more today.
I'm trying not to be jingoistic, but we should be among the elite footballing nations. It's by far the most popular sport in the country, The Premiership is among the top 2/3 leagues in the world with a massive following worldwide.
Logically, Spain, England, Germany and Italy from Europe, along with Brazil and Argentina from South America should dominate world football.
France have done well, but football has nowhere near the same following as it does in this country. Holland always punch above their weight, and there will always be other countries challenging from time to time..Belgium have a remarkable group of players currently for example. But England should always be up there for as long as football remains our true national game..in my opinion. The question remains, what are we doing wrong ?
The Premier League's rating across the world is almost entirely irrelevant to the fortunes of the national side.
There is no divine right whatsoever on England's part to be at football's top table.
My point is there is endless negativity about England, even this morning a caller on the radio suggested putting in the Under 21s, or Championship players. They are the ones my point is primarily intended to address.
If we have such poor players, why are people expecting us to do so much better? The fact is our better players are technically inferior to the better players of other countries and it cannot be down to the manager of the national side as he would not unreasonably expect them to have the ability in place with which he can then work to form tactics capable of showcasing our national side at its best.
The simple answer to your question is we do not get the right coaching in from the early ages. If you do that, at least there is a chance.
We've only beaten Moldova and San Marino in this table so far. Think about that.
I know.
And we are still top having completed our away programme.
People seem to think we should roll over Poland and Montenegro away with ease, yet when we have those same two fixtures left at home, apparently, they are fixtures that we should be fearing.
Far too many people are confusing performance and results. I know the performances aren't good. The results are.
Who knows what results we might get once the performances come good.
And we are still top having completed our away programme.
People seem to think we should roll over Poland and Montenegro away with ease, yet when we have those same two fixtures left at home, apparently, they are fixtures that we should be fearing.
Far too many people are confusing performance and results. I know the performances aren't good. The results are.
Who knows what results we might get once the performances come good.
Look how far away Poland, Ukraine and Montenegro are to us in our points total. You think those 3 teams are close to us in the rankings? Really? Two games left and any of the 3 teams could still surpass us. Disgrace.
I wouldn't call drawing against Ukraine a good result. We defeated them in the Euros at their home ground and now we've gone backwards yet it's still good? We were miles apart from them when we had them in the table for our last WC qualifying campaign.
We were 5 minutes away of losing to Ukraine at Wembley and we needed a pen for us to equalize. Hodgson has already proven to be hopeless at home. He just cannot break a team down who's actually half decent. There's gonna be a banana slip in any of the two remaining games if he keeps it up.
I don't know why you ask, but not particularly, 15 points from the first 7 games is hardly disastrous, nor is 16 from 8 if the last two games are at home and are perfectly winnable.
no-one is calling it disastrous though. however, they haven't beaten a single meaningful opponent so far in 4 attempts, so those 2 "perfectly winnable" games are far from guaranteed.
And we are still top having completed our away programme.
People seem to think we should roll over Poland and Montenegro away with ease, yet when we have those same two fixtures left at home, apparently, they are fixtures that we should be fearing.
Far too many people are confusing performance and results. I know the performances aren't good. The results are.
Who knows what results we might get once the performances come good.
again, no-one has said such teams should be rolled over with ease. there's a middle ground between that and what they're currently producing, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise
no-one is confusing anything or slating last night's result. what we are doing, and with justification, is criticising the performance, because it is the latest in a long line of poor ones from a group of players who are talented enough to be performing much much better.
Comments
If I can rephrase it, would you rather win 1-0 ugly, or look pretty and lose 1-0?
Eh?
How can you say that?
Hes one of the most technically gifted English players out there, he has tecnical ability in abundance.
Take a look at his goal against Villa or just watch him for 1 game.
Your not going down the grammar route are you?
Give me the strength!
You are right its woeful tbh, we do have some good players though.
There is a bigger issue in society as to why we don't have the numbers of quality players we used to get.
However, the last 30 odd years people have been slagging off England on a regular basis, apart from the odd games where it all comes together.
The current squad is not as good as most we've had, but we've hardly enjoyed unbridled success at international level. For many years club football as come first, and that is increasing all the time.
I cant see much sign of improvement, because kids don't grow up playing football the way they used to do, which gave us larger pools to choose from, and coaching of kids has not been done in the right way for years.
For people to blame Hodgson is stupid, because the same people have been blaming every manager for decades. It's the way it goes.
I think this is the problem in a nutshell. 'Consistent' high level of technical skill - something English players can't match foreigners for. You watch any player long enough you'll eventually see something impressive from them, it doesn't really prove anything.
It's the overall success rate of all actions with the ball that English players fall behind on.
that's all well and good, but the answer isn't to increase the pool of eligible players, it's to improve the quality. with the players available, England should be better than only being able to plod through against Ukraine and Montenegro. how large are their pools? significantly smaller than England's, for sure.
I watch Sturridge every week, i don't mean to be patronising but do you even know what technical abilty is?
'Sturridge is not a technical player' words fail me.
So the performance and the result are equally important then.
Given your logic that we performed poorly it would probably prove inconvenient for you to accept it was a good result.
If I was being petty, I could ask the same question of you. But I won't.
In fairness, I think with Sturridge, since the latter part of last season onwards has been showing what he is capable of.
He's thought of as a poacher, but if you watch him over a dozen games you'll start to get an idea of his all round play. His ability to beat a man, play some very clever and splitting passes and his excellent movement on and especially off the ball are all things often missed when his reputation as a poacher often proceeds him.
I think he's a player who, unless you watch week in week out, you won't fully see how much he does and how good a player he is starting to become. His stats of 20 games, 16 goals and 6 assists show that he is playing a very active part in the team all round.
Thing is you clearly don't know what it is.
Not meaning to be rude but saying Sturridge is not a technical player is one of the stupidest things ive read on here.
Just baffles the mind people can be so utterly clueless.
it was a decent result, nothing more. you can cite the fact that it still keeps qualification in their hands etc, but the fact they're so desperately trying to avoid defeat at this late stage is down to performances like this in the first place.
a good result would've been winning. 0-0 (or not losing) would've been a good result for a team for whom qualification was the height of their ambition, I wouldn't expect that to be England's idea of a good result in a group containing San Marino, Moldova, Poland, Montenegro, and Ukraine.
Watch out Pee he will run off to the teacher if you disagree with him or use a certain 'tone'.
Obviously his opinion being completely wrong shouldn't be questioned or even come into the conversation.
We will have to agree to disagree. 0-0 maintains our destiny in our own hands. They have a pretty good home record.
I agree with your first point there. For some reason we have fallen behind in terms of technical ability. But this didn't happen suddenly, it's been a gradual decline over the past 30/40 years.
We still produce a few very good individuals in every generation of players who appear to buck the trend, but not enough. The question is...why ? And I've never heard a convincing answer.
I've noticed over the years that even very moderate foreign sides have players who are more comfortable on the ball than their English counterparts. Is there something fundamentally wrong with our coaching system ?
Without the simple basics, which should be second nature to any professional footballer, we will never be able to play a possession game and start stroking the ball around with confidence.
As someone else said earlier, I don't expect us to suddenly find the likes of Iniesta, Xavi or Messi. But on the other hand, we should be capable of producing an England team that plays with a little style and flair.
I disagree with the second point. I think we should have expected more previously, and we should still be expecting more today.
I'm trying not to be jingoistic, but we should be among the elite footballing nations. It's by far the most popular sport in the country, The Premiership is among the top 2/3 leagues in the world with a massive following worldwide.
Logically, Spain, England, Germany and Italy from Europe, along with Brazil and Argentina from South America should dominate world football.
France have done well, but football has nowhere near the same following as it does in this country. Holland always punch above their weight, and there will always be other countries challenging from time to time..Belgium have a remarkable group of players currently for example. But England should always be up there for as long as football remains our true national game..in my opinion. The question remains, what are we doing wrong ?
I don't know why you ask, but not particularly, 15 points from the first 7 games is hardly disastrous, nor is 16 from 8 if the last two games are at home and are perfectly winnable.
We've only beaten Moldova and San Marino in this table so far. Think about that.
The Premier League's rating across the world is almost entirely irrelevant to the fortunes of the national side.
There is no divine right whatsoever on England's part to be at football's top table.
My point is there is endless negativity about England, even this morning a caller on the radio suggested putting in the Under 21s, or Championship players. They are the ones my point is primarily intended to address.
If we have such poor players, why are people expecting us to do so much better? The fact is our better players are technically inferior to the better players of other countries and it cannot be down to the manager of the national side as he would not unreasonably expect them to have the ability in place with which he can then work to form tactics capable of showcasing our national side at its best.
The simple answer to your question is we do not get the right coaching in from the early ages. If you do that, at least there is a chance.
I know.
And we are still top having completed our away programme.
People seem to think we should roll over Poland and Montenegro away with ease, yet when we have those same two fixtures left at home, apparently, they are fixtures that we should be fearing.
Far too many people are confusing performance and results. I know the performances aren't good. The results are.
Who knows what results we might get once the performances come good.
Look how far away Poland, Ukraine and Montenegro are to us in our points total. You think those 3 teams are close to us in the rankings? Really? Two games left and any of the 3 teams could still surpass us. Disgrace.
I wouldn't call drawing against Ukraine a good result. We defeated them in the Euros at their home ground and now we've gone backwards yet it's still good? We were miles apart from them when we had them in the table for our last WC qualifying campaign.
We were 5 minutes away of losing to Ukraine at Wembley and we needed a pen for us to equalize. Hodgson has already proven to be hopeless at home. He just cannot break a team down who's actually half decent. There's gonna be a banana slip in any of the two remaining games if he keeps it up.
again, no-one has said such teams should be rolled over with ease. there's a middle ground between that and what they're currently producing, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise
no-one is confusing anything or slating last night's result. what we are doing, and with justification, is criticising the performance, because it is the latest in a long line of poor ones from a group of players who are talented enough to be performing much much better.