Why the time bracket of 2005-10? England has dramatically underachieved at international tournaments since 1996 (and since 1990 on the World stage) despite having quite a number of excellent players all playing at the same time.
It's more likely England overachieved in 1966.
Statistics alone would suggest the odds of underachieving in all those tournaments are far slimmer than the odds of overachieving in one or two and just performing to the norm in the rest.
Keeping in mind, England were of course the hosts in '66 and are the only host in the tournament's history to play all their games in one stadium - the biggest one available to maximise home support,
England fans should thank their lucky stars and be content with one WC. It's quite an honour & an achievement and they are in some good company.
In WC2006 the team was unlucky to go out on pens to Portugal it happens in football just seems to happen a bit too much in our case. When you look at 2008 failing to even get to Euro's you have to blame the FA and the manager Stephen McClaren. It was not just the night with the wally with the brolly he managed to turn them into a pretty poor team.
WC2010 was a little more interesting Capello was a good manager and while many blamed him for having a lack of a plan B I think the players should take a lot of the blame. After they blamed the manager for keeping them locked up in the hotel with nothing to do.
For me this excuse is thin they should have been preparing to play football not swanning off around the town anyway. Either way aside a few players most where shocking during the matches like rabbit in the headlights unable to avoid the oncoming car that was Germany.
So 2008-2010 I think this team did under perform a combination of a poor management skills in 2008 and down to the players attitude in 2010. They really should have done better but I question if they really could have beaten a very good Spain in 2010 even if they had been at their best.
Just to make a point about the OP, and the team he's posted. Most of those players have now retired, or have stopped playing at international level, all be it recently for some. Out of those the one position we haven't filled in is the one where the OP failed to acknowledge the player's standing i.e. right back. I would have thought by now people realised how good Neville was, whilst never being naturally gifted he was became one of the best right backs in the world, and consistently so. We've found right back, possibly the hardest position in the team to replace from that team onwards really.
Anyway to assess the failures of the national team, I'm on board with the idea that we had a group of individuals and rather than a team. This indicates some sort of failings on the managerial part for not being able to build a team spirit, even if they don't see the team that often. I also feel that the media have to take some blame, way to often they have built up the chances of the national team and far too often the public has bought it. We see in this thread alone the comments that the media claimed so and so was world class etc. The question is were they really??
What can be said is that we've qualified for the major tournaments more often than not, and that is all we can ask for, as if you don't reach the finals, you don't have a chance of winning anything. That we constantly fail when at the finals is another issue, but only one team wins each tourney and historically its the same countries that win them over and over. None of the France, Netherlands nor Spain for that matter have become a superpower, like the Germany's, Brazil's or Italy's even though through the past 3 or 4 decades producing some of the best teams the world has seen. They've won tourney's with a generation, but not continued the success. We as a nation have never been amongst the real elite, and till we accept that, we'll constantly think we've failed if we don't win.
Looking at that list, they ain't world class; elite footballers on planet earth. They're the best of England talent. Though, to be fair, I'd include A. Cole, Lampard (endurance) and Ferdinand (briefly).
Our players have always been over-hyped, by a very powerful media. There is a reason our players are rarely wanted abroad.
Yes, the lack of English players playing for Barcelona, Real Madrid or any of the top European sides for that matter tells us something! 'World Class' is a whole another level.
Yes, the lack of English players playing for Barcelona, Real Madrid or any of the top European sides for that matter tells us something! 'World Class' is a whole another level.
Most of them play for English clubs who are amongst the 'top European sides'.
Joe Cole was ridiculously hyped up by the media in 2010 world cup, as soon as he came on Germany scored two further goals against England, though it wasn't all his fault, England were a bit pants and the dodgy linesman didn't help.
We needed to play players like Scholes & Gerrard in their best position rather than shoving them out wide to accommodate Lampard (not that Lampard wasn't a class act himself - he was)
By the time people realised this, Scholes had got fed up and retired from international football.
Scholes himself, instead of being annoyed at being moved to the left to make way for Lampard, didn't think he should even have been in the team:
"I didn’t think I was playing well enough to stay in the England team. For some reason, Sven Goran Eriksson kept picking me. I am grateful for his loyalty, but on my performances around 2004 I should have been left out....what matters is the quality of your play, and by the end of my England career, which came after Euro 2004, I felt that my quality had slipped too far. I did not warrant being in the team."
Yes, the lack of English players playing for Barcelona, Real Madrid or any of the top European sides for that matter tells us something! 'World Class' is a whole another level.
Inclusive from 2005 to 2012 English clubs appeared in the final of the Champions League in all but 1 season. That's 7 out of 8 finals. Real Madrid didn't appear in any. I'd argue the world class players were playing for the top sides in that period.
In answer to the OP question, I think poor management and too much pressure contributed to under performance. The "Golden Generation" were couldn't handle it
Joe Cole was ridiculously hyped up by the media in 2010 world cup, as soon as he came on Germany scored two further goals against England, though it wasn't all his fault, England were a bit pants and the dodgy linesman didn't help.
Joe Cole was never, ever a world class player. Mourinho got the best out of him, eventually, but only by forcing him to play in a manner that was productive to the team instead of the usual aimless dribbling in circles that he favours.
He played a couple of good games for England where he stayed out wide and actually passed it to an overlapping Cashley at least once in a game, but after that he seemed to default to "get ball; cut in from the left; hit traffic" every time. Ok, he scored one beauty too, but otherwise he was a complete chocolate teapot for England.
Lampard/Gerrard never worked as a central combination in a 4-4-2. At that time Gerrard had players such as Xabi Alonso around to be the discipline in midfield to cover for his tendency to go rampaging all over the pitch. Lampard, whilst a brilliant attacking midfielder, was never going to provide that cover at England level... in fact, it was often Gerrard who ended up playing deep and providing cover for Lampard! The worst part was that Gerrard was probably one of the players who was the worst for giving the ball away cheaply as he kept trying to hit the kind of passes he'd go for in the last 3rd of the pitch from somewhere inside his own half.
Could Gerrard and Lampard have played together effectively? Not in any way that would exploit the talents of both of them to the absolute maximum as they both preferred to be attacking from the left side of midfield.
Could Gerrard and Lampard have played together more effectively than they did? Yes, but only if you eschew a 4-4-2 formation, drop Joe Cole and put a disciplined player in behind them. Funnily enough, Beckham probably could've done that without dropping him too, though Paul Scholes would've been a better choice. He had the passing range, he actually had the defensive ability (because he had no pace he utilised Gary Neville's overlapping runs to good effect, which meant that he was often providing defensive cover for Neville).
Then there was Rooney and Owen up front. By the time the so-called golden generation was in full swing Owen was no longer world class (by the time he left for Real Madrid his level had already dropped off), if he ever really was. As for Rooney, who *is* world class, well he produced at his first major tournament and then was recovering from injuries at the other major tournaments when the golden generation was all together and we now know definitively that he takes longer to return to form after an injury lay off than players normally do due to the way he plays (he trusts his feet to behave whilst he thinks about 5 other things when the ball is incoming... when your muscles aren't sharp you can't do that else heavy touches/general sloppiness ensues).
Whether or not Beckham was ever really world class is arguable. He had world class moments, but overall I'd say he was just shy of the world class category. Regardless, put him in a team with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney and you've got four players with a tendency to attempt to use the ball in low percentage ways that when they come off are wonderful and can be just what was needed to break down the resistance of teams at any level, but more often than not leads to losing possession that you don't get back for some time.
The defence was excellent. Rio, Terry (or Sol Campbell) and Ashley Cole were all world class at their best and played well together. Gary Neville, not quite, but not far off and very reliable as a defender and a better defender than anyone currently playing defence for England
The problem for the defence was that they had the pressure of having unreliable goalkeepers behind them and the pressure of having poor defensive cover in front of them from an under performing midfield/attack constantly heaping additional pressure on the defence by conceding possession cheaply far too frequently.
And outside of that group of players, Scholes aside, from what I remember there was quite a drop off in level to the next best players (central defence aside where we had Ledley King, et-al). Phil Neville being brought on as a defensive midfielder? Oh my no... but that's the kind of thing that happened, ffs.
In short: ropey goalkeepers, wonderful defence, hopelessly unbalanced midfield and attack never quite managing to be as good as it theoretically could've been.
part of the problem with the england team in that era is that we didn't have world class midfielders in specialist roles, who was the world class defensive midfielder in that era, who was the world class number 10 playmaker to play behind the front man, we didn't have anyone remotely good enough to play those roles in that era.
all we had in centre mid was all rounders like gerrard and lampard who didn't have the technical skillset or positional discipline to play in central midfield at international tournaments. or decent players like barry and hargreaves who again were not good enough at international level, hargreaves was absolutely shite for england but he kept getting into squads for whatever reason.
scholes was the only true world class centre mid england had in that era but he retired way too early after getting shunted onto the wing to accomodate gerrard and lampard, and england lost an absolutely magnificent player as a result. carrick and scholes were an excellent partnership at united for a while and could of been for england, but carrick was another very good player that was inexplicably marginalised despite being comfortably the best english defensive mid in the country.
another problem was a lack of pace in the team or more specifically down the wings, joe cole and beckham were not the quickest around and the alternative wing options were pretty shit. playing a flat 4-4-2 with 2 strikers didn't help, and that feeds into the midfield problem. england for a long long time have not been producing specialist midfield players, english coaches seem to think that midfielders have to be all rounders that can go box to box and do a bit of everything. the results of this are very few defensive or attacking midfield players being produced in those specialist roles, because those guys are not used in a 4-4-2.
things seem to be changing for the better regarding the coaching side of things, you can see that in some of the great youngsters that are coming through right now...
No doubt that pre Hodgson a lot of our players were great at club level at least. Most of them playing for big clubs, are respected very much by their fans and a lot being champions league/eventual champions league winners.
God knows why these guys don't do it at international level. Maybe they are just made to look better than they are by the foreign players around them
Comments
It's more likely England overachieved in 1966.
Statistics alone would suggest the odds of underachieving in all those tournaments are far slimmer than the odds of overachieving in one or two and just performing to the norm in the rest.
Keeping in mind, England were of course the hosts in '66 and are the only host in the tournament's history to play all their games in one stadium - the biggest one available to maximise home support,
England fans should thank their lucky stars and be content with one WC. It's quite an honour & an achievement and they are in some good company.
WC2010 was a little more interesting Capello was a good manager and while many blamed him for having a lack of a plan B I think the players should take a lot of the blame. After they blamed the manager for keeping them locked up in the hotel with nothing to do.
For me this excuse is thin they should have been preparing to play football not swanning off around the town anyway. Either way aside a few players most where shocking during the matches like rabbit in the headlights unable to avoid the oncoming car that was Germany.
So 2008-2010 I think this team did under perform a combination of a poor management skills in 2008 and down to the players attitude in 2010. They really should have done better but I question if they really could have beaten a very good Spain in 2010 even if they had been at their best.
Anyway to assess the failures of the national team, I'm on board with the idea that we had a group of individuals and rather than a team. This indicates some sort of failings on the managerial part for not being able to build a team spirit, even if they don't see the team that often. I also feel that the media have to take some blame, way to often they have built up the chances of the national team and far too often the public has bought it. We see in this thread alone the comments that the media claimed so and so was world class etc. The question is were they really??
What can be said is that we've qualified for the major tournaments more often than not, and that is all we can ask for, as if you don't reach the finals, you don't have a chance of winning anything. That we constantly fail when at the finals is another issue, but only one team wins each tourney and historically its the same countries that win them over and over. None of the France, Netherlands nor Spain for that matter have become a superpower, like the Germany's, Brazil's or Italy's even though through the past 3 or 4 decades producing some of the best teams the world has seen. They've won tourney's with a generation, but not continued the success. We as a nation have never been amongst the real elite, and till we accept that, we'll constantly think we've failed if we don't win.
Fear - and a lack of cohesion in their play, which is now being addressed at youth level (the u18s are a good example of that).
Our players have always been over-hyped, by a very powerful media. There is a reason our players are rarely wanted abroad.
Most of them play for English clubs who are amongst the 'top European sides'.
Scholes himself, instead of being annoyed at being moved to the left to make way for Lampard, didn't think he should even have been in the team:
"I didn’t think I was playing well enough to stay in the England team. For some reason, Sven Goran Eriksson kept picking me. I am grateful for his loyalty, but on my performances around 2004 I should have been left out....what matters is the quality of your play, and by the end of my England career, which came after Euro 2004, I felt that my quality had slipped too far. I did not warrant being in the team."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/paul-scholes-column-wayne-rooney-deserves-all-his-england-caps-i-just-hope-he-has-enough-time-left-to-win-a-trophy-with-the-national-team-9860050.html
Lack of balance
Too many egos
Players looking better than they are due to club team mates
In answer to the OP question, I think poor management and too much pressure contributed to under performance. The "Golden Generation" were couldn't handle it
Joe Cole was never, ever a world class player. Mourinho got the best out of him, eventually, but only by forcing him to play in a manner that was productive to the team instead of the usual aimless dribbling in circles that he favours.
He played a couple of good games for England where he stayed out wide and actually passed it to an overlapping Cashley at least once in a game, but after that he seemed to default to "get ball; cut in from the left; hit traffic" every time. Ok, he scored one beauty too, but otherwise he was a complete chocolate teapot for England.
Lampard/Gerrard never worked as a central combination in a 4-4-2. At that time Gerrard had players such as Xabi Alonso around to be the discipline in midfield to cover for his tendency to go rampaging all over the pitch. Lampard, whilst a brilliant attacking midfielder, was never going to provide that cover at England level... in fact, it was often Gerrard who ended up playing deep and providing cover for Lampard! The worst part was that Gerrard was probably one of the players who was the worst for giving the ball away cheaply as he kept trying to hit the kind of passes he'd go for in the last 3rd of the pitch from somewhere inside his own half.
Could Gerrard and Lampard have played together effectively? Not in any way that would exploit the talents of both of them to the absolute maximum as they both preferred to be attacking from the left side of midfield.
Could Gerrard and Lampard have played together more effectively than they did? Yes, but only if you eschew a 4-4-2 formation, drop Joe Cole and put a disciplined player in behind them. Funnily enough, Beckham probably could've done that without dropping him too, though Paul Scholes would've been a better choice. He had the passing range, he actually had the defensive ability (because he had no pace he utilised Gary Neville's overlapping runs to good effect, which meant that he was often providing defensive cover for Neville).
Then there was Rooney and Owen up front. By the time the so-called golden generation was in full swing Owen was no longer world class (by the time he left for Real Madrid his level had already dropped off), if he ever really was. As for Rooney, who *is* world class, well he produced at his first major tournament and then was recovering from injuries at the other major tournaments when the golden generation was all together and we now know definitively that he takes longer to return to form after an injury lay off than players normally do due to the way he plays (he trusts his feet to behave whilst he thinks about 5 other things when the ball is incoming... when your muscles aren't sharp you can't do that else heavy touches/general sloppiness ensues).
Whether or not Beckham was ever really world class is arguable. He had world class moments, but overall I'd say he was just shy of the world class category. Regardless, put him in a team with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney and you've got four players with a tendency to attempt to use the ball in low percentage ways that when they come off are wonderful and can be just what was needed to break down the resistance of teams at any level, but more often than not leads to losing possession that you don't get back for some time.
The defence was excellent. Rio, Terry (or Sol Campbell) and Ashley Cole were all world class at their best and played well together. Gary Neville, not quite, but not far off and very reliable as a defender and a better defender than anyone currently playing defence for England
The problem for the defence was that they had the pressure of having unreliable goalkeepers behind them and the pressure of having poor defensive cover in front of them from an under performing midfield/attack constantly heaping additional pressure on the defence by conceding possession cheaply far too frequently.
And outside of that group of players, Scholes aside, from what I remember there was quite a drop off in level to the next best players (central defence aside where we had Ledley King, et-al). Phil Neville being brought on as a defensive midfielder? Oh my no... but that's the kind of thing that happened, ffs.
In short: ropey goalkeepers, wonderful defence, hopelessly unbalanced midfield and attack never quite managing to be as good as it theoretically could've been.
Less than the sum of their parts, they were.
all we had in centre mid was all rounders like gerrard and lampard who didn't have the technical skillset or positional discipline to play in central midfield at international tournaments. or decent players like barry and hargreaves who again were not good enough at international level, hargreaves was absolutely shite for england but he kept getting into squads for whatever reason.
scholes was the only true world class centre mid england had in that era but he retired way too early after getting shunted onto the wing to accomodate gerrard and lampard, and england lost an absolutely magnificent player as a result. carrick and scholes were an excellent partnership at united for a while and could of been for england, but carrick was another very good player that was inexplicably marginalised despite being comfortably the best english defensive mid in the country.
another problem was a lack of pace in the team or more specifically down the wings, joe cole and beckham were not the quickest around and the alternative wing options were pretty shit. playing a flat 4-4-2 with 2 strikers didn't help, and that feeds into the midfield problem. england for a long long time have not been producing specialist midfield players, english coaches seem to think that midfielders have to be all rounders that can go box to box and do a bit of everything. the results of this are very few defensive or attacking midfield players being produced in those specialist roles, because those guys are not used in a 4-4-2.
things seem to be changing for the better regarding the coaching side of things, you can see that in some of the great youngsters that are coming through right now...
God knows why these guys don't do it at international level. Maybe they are just made to look better than they are by the foreign players around them