|
||||||||
Last truly great England side was? ,,,,, |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,786
|
Quote:
1990 for me - Cannot beat Platt, Linekar, Beardsley, Pearce, Walker, Parker, Shilton, Butcher, Gazza etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chester
Posts: 172
|
Quote:
1990 for me - Cannot beat Platt, Linekar, Beardsley, Pearce, Walker, Parker, Shilton, Butcher, Gazza etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,931
|
Truly great should be standing comparison with the outstanding sides to have ever played. England's 1966 side would fit.
No other side since would. The 1970 side would be above the others mentioned even though they only got to the quarter finals. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,997
|
2002-2006 team was pretty good IMO:
- beaten by a fluke goal by one of the best Brazilian teams of all time - losing on penalties to the portugal's golden generation |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,003
|
Regardless of team how many matches since 1966 can you say that England produced a truly great performance in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,931
|
We are really stretching the definition of "truly great" in a few of these posts.
Half decent might be more accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,843
|
Ronaldinho meant that goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,053
|
I don't think there has been a "great" English side. The team of 1966 is probably the nearest, but then home advantage does tend to factor into it. The team of 1990 was quite good as well, it has to be said. England has produced some capable teams that could have gone far, but I think it's a stretch to consider any of them truly great.
Oh, yeah, Ronaldinho meant that goal. I really wish people would give credit where it's due. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 19,941
|
I don't think England has had a truly great side, at least, not in the colour TV era.
The 1966 side is obviously the best side as it won the World Cup, but the only England since then that I've thought that it looked like it could do something was the 1996 side. The 1990 side is probably the best England side since 1966 though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Derby
Posts: 27,583
|
I don't think the 1990 side was that great despite all the talk and a Gazza mania that followed. They played poorly against Ireland and Egypt in their group. They were second best against Belgium who still had many players from their strong 1986 team. They only beat Cameroon because of the African nation's lack of discipline. Then finally they had a good game when they had the better of West Germany in the 120 mins. But everyone was poor in 1990.
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,410
|
Quote:
I don't think England has had a truly great side, at least, not in the colour TV era.
The 1966 side is obviously the best side as it won the World Cup, but the only England since then that I've thought that it looked like it could do something was the 1996 side. The 1990 side is probably the best England side since 1966 though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
The 1970 side was probably the best after 1966, they lost Gordon Banks to food poisoning before their quarter final with West Germany and ended up with the much less experienced Peter Bonetti in goal, they lost 3-2 after being 2-0 up.
The 1970 team was the best I remember. The 1996 side wasn't bad, but not in the same class. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Derby
Posts: 27,583
|
Quote:
I agree the 1970 side was the peak of that group of players. But it wasn't Bonetti's fault they lost and even though he didn't have many caps he was a top quality goalkeeper. The substitutions Ramsey made didn't help. England were in charge of the game before Charlton and Peters were replaced. Bonetti wasn't at fault for the two goals that led to extra time, though he did flap at the winner.
The 1970 team was the best I remember. The 1996 side wasn't bad, but not in the same class. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,936
|
What about the class of 94?
Andy Sinton Carlton Palmer Tony Dorigo Lee Sharpe Heady days. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 19,941
|
Quote:
What about the class of 94?
Andy Sinton Carlton Palmer Tony Dorigo Lee Sharp Heady days. It's a shame they didn't qualify for USA '94, because that side would have won the WC easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gtr Manchester UK
Posts: 7,919
|
Quote:
I don't think England has had a truly great side, at least, not in the colour TV era.
. England should play all their games in black-and-white; we were damned good at cricket in those days too.John Edrich was never the same in colour. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 4,031
|
For me I think the 1990 side was the last great side we had. If Robson stayed for a couple more years we may have won the Euro's in 92.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:40.




England should play all their games in black-and-white; we were damned good at cricket in those days too.