if international football was run on a league basis with around 18 teams in each division we'd be in Division one, mid-table..........we'd be Stoke or Aston Villa

without looking at all the results but it seems most times england faces a 'big team' in the world cup england will lose it either normal time or penalties. when was the last time england beat a big team? probably against argentina 12 years ago and that was just down to a lucky penalty

Not to mention Euro championship performances have generally been even worse.

England have typically been ranked about 8th. Viewed from that perspective, getting knocked out in the quarters is what we should expect to happen.

Being ranked 8th means they're "big" in world terms but in reality we really mean "big" should correspond to performance in accordance with the stats you cite above.

That's true, but it's really saying England are like Stoke. On their day they could beat anybody but aren't good enough to regularly reach WC semis and finals.

Or in tennis terms England are like Tsonga or Berdych. The top guys don't want to meet them, they can cause upsets, but they ain't gonna win grand slams.

"Big team" is a bit of an abstract term. Big relative to who exactly? They don't have the record to match some countries but they outperform others - same as everyone else really.

My personal opinion is that they are usually in the range of top 16 teams, but not top 8, if you took the average every year of how good their team was. As there are 207 international teams in FIFA rankings then I suppose that's pretty good. It's all a matter of perspective and expectations.

I agree. They pretty much achieve in accordance with their typical world rankings, so knocked out in quarters.

I agree with this. Between 1950 and 2008, the big four teams you've highlighted have dominated tournament football, with occasional guest appearances from France, Holland, Uruguay, Portugal and England. Spain, who were often woeful in later stages, have joined the big four, creating a big five. England is in the second tier group outside these five. Problem is though, we struggle even against the leading teams in our group such as Portugal, France and Holland these days.

I think we have been really unfortunate to meet big teams on the way to the semis. We constantly hey the likes of Argentina or Germany early in the tournament where some of the surprise teams have a easier route.

Now I know to win you have to beat all comers but every teams plays that little bit better every round they progress.

England are a big team, but are perpetual underachievers, good job expectations are low this time round then.

True and we've been unlucky. Went out in 1982 without losing a game. The way the second round worked let us down but we were a match for anyone that year. We were on the back foot against Argentina in 1986 but were knocked out technically by an illegal goal. We were better than West Germany in 1990. Matched Argentina in 1998. Took a fluke goal for Brazil to beat us in 2002. Matched Portugal in 2006. Suffered a disallowed goal which could have turned the match against Germany in 2010. I suppose what I'm saying is that we were never thrashed from start to finish in the games where we were knocked out of the World Cup.

I like England and would like them to do as well as they possibly can, but I have absolutely no faith in them when it comes to actually winning.

Not really a big side, but this is coupled with smaller teams raising their standards.

CONCACAF looks stronger than I can recently recall, and Eastern European sides have also stepped up.

Agree about CONCACAF. May be it's the rise of US football that has helped improve standards.

Eastern European sides are always a bit underestimated although I think they were stronger 70s>90s. I think it's because there are usually 1 or 2 really good sides but it's not always the same country. Years ago Hungary and Czechoslovakia were really strong, in the 80s Poland, then the 90s Romania and Bulgaria were excellent sides as well as the new Czech Republic. More recently Croatia, Turkey and Greece have performed well. And the Soviet Union / Russia and Ukraine are always pretty strong too.

If they had a separate tournament for the old warsaw pact countries (or modern equivalents) then it would be very interesting. I'm not even sure who would be favourite. Maybe Russia. Really any one of about a dozen countries would fancy their chances though. ~ Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Russia and one other to make the 12....Slovenia maybe or Israel since they are European as far as FIFA are concerned.

I agree with that. What I feel is different this time is the quantity of sides playing above a certain level; as you highlighted in the later part of your post, though there are also additionally some good performances by so called minnows. I'm thinking Montenegro Armenia & Estonia (in Euro 2012 qual).

Yeah, there are definitely less hopeless teams around these days. Just about every nation has pro footballers in big leagues playing at a high level. Less total unknowns.

In the 70s and 80s, Eastern European teams were often a match for the top Western European teams. Poland was probably the strongest of the lot and always worth a bet for a semifinal place. Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and of course the Soviet Union were all very strong teams. It's a shame how weak they and their modern offshoots have all become. Although it's probably good for England as tournament qualification would be a lot harder!!

I'd be happy with England being a small team and get to the semis or further occasionally.

It is a results business.

But if England do not qualify for the knock-outs I would not think badly of the team or the manager. They could even come last in the group with no shame.

Those World cups in the 80s for England were a relief as our sport was at its lowest with fan troubles. Italia 90 was special although it was not plain sailing. Certain parts of the media were harsh but changed their tune.
After Euro 96, England for me sadly has been a disapointment. Sure we had that great Owen goal in WC 98 only for Beckham to lose it.
Sven got us to three QF, two world cups and a euro not to mention that victory over Germany but should of gone further.

One semi final and two failures to qualify in the past 20 years of major tournaments is a pretty poor record and probably puts them more on a par with teams like Croatia and Sweden than on a par with the other big teams. Way below their potential in terms of results in the last 20 years, the team of around 2006 in particular should have been challenging for trophies. A somewhat horrific record in penalty shoot-outs probably skews the results a bit though and if they had a more average or even good record in shoot-outs then their results would match the big teams a bit more closely.

Everyone focuses on England's performance when judging them but they are rated against the other teams around the world. If you look at some of the other teams you will notice it is not a perfect picture for them either.

Look at France in the last world cup, even recently Brazil not so long ago had their problems. Look at Portugal today hammered by Germany you have to put our results into context.

If you look at our international record it is not that bad. Take Italy for example sure they beat us but it was close and Italy got to the final of the european cup. Now would it shock to learn that it was their first win in 8 games ? That included a poor 1 -1 draw with Luxembourg just prior to the start of the world cup.

England do a lot better than we give them credit for at times we expect them to be perfect but that is not how it works in international football. Teams al around the world are getting better and outside of the Spain, Germany, Italy, Brazil most national teams struggle to keep a performance going across a number of years.

So we are not the best team in the world, we might not be up their with the very best but we are in with a good shout against any other team. I think we just expect too much from them in trying to judge them against the quality of Spain or Germany.

Hungary have definitely declined and Poland too, who were strong in the 70s to themid-80s. I'm not sure Yugoslavia have really declined, more that being split into so many countries has spoilt their chances. A united Yugoslav team would be one of the leading contenders at the world cup. Consider a squad containing Handanovic, Vidic, Ivanovic, Kolarov, Pjanic, Matic, Modric, Rakitic, Mandzukic, Dzeko, Jovetic, Pandev.

England car flags have been reduced in Primark from £2 to 50p

I would like to know where you got the "still" from? I've always viewed them as a country that is a notable powerhouse within Europe, but their players and performances aren't noteworthy at all. Even now, looking at the players we have, plus the potential - Could you really say they're contenders for winning a tournament with any assurance ? I can't. Then when you take into consideration the other teams, it looks even worse.

England is an average team that benefits greatly from having a recognisable 'presence' (league & language) but you won't see an English player making the world eleven or being a contender for world player of the year without exception.

OP back

On reflection, I think England are big in the sense that Newcastle are big.

Attract fanatical support without being too good.