|
||||||||
Last truly great England side was? ,,,,, |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,194
|
Last truly great England side was? ,,,,,
For me since I've been alive it was the euro 96 side. Nothing for me will ever compare . Seeing shearer , sheringham ,ince , gazza etc in there pomp . Also it was just the overall buzz of having a European championships in my home country . Iirc we started off with a dodgy draw with Switzerland but soon improved and who could ever forget gazza's goal vs Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,282
|
Was it that good?
After the dodgy draw with the Swiss, we could have easily ended up drawing against the Scots who missed a penalty just before Gazza made it 2-0, and we beat a Dutch team who were too busy squabbling among themselves, followed by a dull 0-0 and penalties against Spain before going out on penalties. The core of this team failed to get us to the world cup in 94. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sarf London
Posts: 13,295
|
And Spain were robbed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,274
|
Surely the '66 team are the only ones who could truly be called great, they are the only ones that have won anything
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
|
The euro 96 team is way overrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,843
|
You can be great without winning, although obviously that's more your 70s Dutch and '82 Brazil than any England side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,274
|
Of all the teams I've seen I would put the Italia 90 one at the top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
|
Define "great"?
Best in the world? (*Never have been) One of the top 10 international sides ever from any country? (*I don't think so) Capable of winning a tournament? (* 1996, 1990, 1970, 1966 but then many countries are capable of winning a tournament - maybe every country in a competition is capable of winning if Greece can win a tournament.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
Quote:
For me since I've been alive it was the euro 96 side. Nothing for me will ever compare . Seeing shearer , sheringham ,ince , gazza etc in there pomp . Also it was just the overall buzz of having a European championships in my home country . Iirc we started off with a dodgy draw with Switzerland but soon improved and who could ever forget gazza's goal vs Scotland.
The two best squads post 90, which is when I started to get into football are Euro96 and WC98. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,288
|
Quote:
Of all the teams I've seen I would put the Italia 90 one at the top
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,319
|
Quote:
Surely the '66 team are the only ones who could truly be called great, they are the only ones that have won anything
Truly great teams dont make me laugh |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,194
|
Quote:
Non have been great otherwise they would have won something.
The two best squads post 90, which is when I started to get into football are Euro96 and WC98. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,575
|
1888-89
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,814
|
The '66 team only had three world class players (four if you count Greaves who didn't feature in the final)..Banks, Moore and Charlton. We've probably come close since then in terms of quality, but we have never found another manager who could blend that talent into a winning team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Erskine, Renfrewshire.
Posts: 2,346
|
Your 1990 World Cup side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
|
Quote:
The '66 team only had three world class players (four if you count Greaves who didn't feature in the final)..Banks, Moore and Charlton. We've probably come close since then in terms of quality, but we have never found another manager who could blend that talent into a winning team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,744
|
Quote:
You can be great without winning, although obviously that's more your 70s Dutch and '82 Brazil than any England side.
And maybe I'm being generous by including semi-finalist of the World Cup? |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,400
|
1990.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
|
Quote:
Home advantage is massive in those circumstances too. I'm not in the mood for looking up more stats but I'm pretty sure being host gives most countries a boost and they perform better than normally.
Sweden final in 58 Chile third in 62 England won 66 Etc. Loads of examples |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 17,852
|
Venables side in 1996 was the last decent england side. Creative and looked the budiness
Nobody said you had to win. Loads of decent sides have been beaten. Football is a very close game. Just a matter of luck, and maybe some refereeing calls |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Derby
Posts: 27,583
|
I suppose the last great team was the 1970 one. They were considered joint favourites with Brazil and ahead of Germany and Italy. Lost to the Germans in QFs because of slackness.
But the best team I remember was the England 82 side with Robson, Wilkins, Keegan, Francis, Clemence and Brooking amongst others. Dominated a tough group which included a very good French team that should have made the final (being 3-1 up in extra time!!) and a dangerous Czech team. Didn't lose a match but were knocked out because of a stupid second round format of 3 team groups. But that was the peak. We lost out qualifying for Euro 84 to the great Laudrup led Danish side. We did ok in 1990 but we weren't that great really. We looked a lot better in Euro 1996. But we haven't really looked capable of taking on the big countries since then. |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 6,436
|
Difficult question to answer really, as we have always been distinctly average.
I'm not sure that even the 1966 side could be called "great" really. Home advantage makes a big difference. Hell, even South Korea made the semis when they hosted it! I suppose the best team I've seen would be either the 1990 or 1996 side and that's mainly because of a few moments of magic from Gazza. The 1982 team wasn't bad either. Hoddle's 1998 World Cup side looked like they might do something until we performed our usual trick of losing to the first top team we played. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 900
|
in 1966
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,319
|
England 1966 team could be called a truly great team
their 3 year record was superb plus they Won the 66 cup 1966 results 3 seasons 1964-65 won 5 drew 4 Lost 0 1965-66 won 12 drew 3 lost 1 1966-67 won 7 drew 1 lost 1 The 1996 team also has a really outstanding set of results and would definatley be the best England team to follow the 66 squad 1996 results 1994-95 won 3 drew 4 Lost 1 1995-96 won 7 drew 5 lost 1 1996-97 won 9 drew 0 lost 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,165
|
Quote:
England 1966 team could be called a truly great team
their 3 year record was superb plus they Won the 66 cup 1966 results 3 seasons 1964-65 won 5 drew 4 Lost 0 1965-66 won 12 drew 3 lost 1 1966-67 won 7 drew 1 lost 1 The 1996 team also has a really outstanding set of results and would definatley be the best England team to follow the 66 squad 1996 results 1994-95 won 3 drew 4 Lost 1 1995-96 won 7 drew 5 lost 1 1996-97 won 9 drew 0 lost 2 |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:39.



