I'm just watching the Germany v Algeria game which I am enjoying.

Algeria are playing really well and I was wondering if anybody thinks England would play any better than Algeria? Are we worse than Algeria?

England are a better side than Algeria, they're just having a better tournament. Form and fortune fluctuate.

If England and Algeria played 10 times, I would expect England to win the majority of those games.

The current England squad is very poor, but we should still see off most of the minnows.

Well we did only draw with them in 2010...and that was when we were meant to have a better team but you'd expect to win MOST of the time if players are on form.

Which of course hasn't been the case.

Maybe anger and frustration blur my vision, but I would say the majority of the top 30 ranked international teams are either more comfortable on the ball, or have more passion and team spirit to make up for it, than England

If I was seeding a world cup today and it was strictly best to worst sides then England would be number 15 seeds provided all the best teams qualified. I'm neutral so I'm not trying to overestimate their strength or underestimate it.

However that's all hypothetical conjecture speculation opinion nonsense based on how strong I think squads are and how they play (generally). The only cold hard facts are results and rankings. England are ranked 10th by FIFA and have just went out of the world cup in the groups, but did qualify for the finals at least. Clearly they aren't the worst side around by a long shot. Neither are Algeria.

Brazil
France
Italy
Germany
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Belgium
Columbia
Holland
Think they are all currently better than us

It was always though that England were maybe about 9th best in the world but generally always losing to top 8 type teams.

There are lot more new arrivals as big teams which are better than England such as Belgium, Chile, Columbia. Mexico etc who are all now way better than England.

So from high second band team, they are probably are a lower second band team now.

Any other falls and no improvement would take them into the third level of teams

The current England squad is stronger than it's been for years. There are a couple of weaknesses in defence which ruin the balance.

These days no team that qualifies for the World Cup is a minnow. There are no easy games any more.

Nope. You're jumping on so many bandwagons here it's unreal.

Agreed. I guess we'll never know but I certainly think England would have got out of some of the other groups, but then so would Spain, Italy etc.

England are a weak side. All the CONCAF teams (Mexico, USA, Costa Rica) are currently better than them. Same goes for a handful of African teams, and some formerly underrated South American sides (Colombia, Chile etc).

England keeps trading on it's past, it's history to puff themselves up. The sooner they come to terms with the fact that they are a second or third rate team on the world stage, the sooner they'll able to find ways to become a top tier side again. Problem is you still have an arrogant mindset among English players, ex-players and coaches who think England are ALWAYS among the top 10 teams on the planet, no matter the evidence that suggests otherwise. Danny Murphy suggesting England could pulverize Colombia was the sort of out of touch statement I'm talking about. Same with Harry Redknapp's comments about teams performing better than England not having players good enough to get in the Premiership.

Louis Van Gaal basucally said it. Not one England player is good enough to get into the Dutch first team. Not Gerrad, not Rooney. None of them.

Problem is, England will now go back to thrashing the likes of San Marino 8-0, and get good results against decent teams in meaningless friendlies and convince themselves all over again that they are world beaters and favorites for the Euros. It's a never ending cycle.

You've got to be kidding.

This England squad is dreadful. There's one or two promising kids, but that's about it.

I think England would have got through ahead of Algeria if they were in group H instead of Russia.

Algeria have been impressive in this tournament though

England might not have performed well at the finals but they keep getting their in a strong position and don't lose many friendlies along the way. In order to keep a high ranking you have to beat the teams in and around you position over a number of years.

As bad as you might think England are if you follow other teams results they are not all that great either. Italy for example lost to both Chile and Uruguay out at the group stage but beat England. However if you look at their record they have only won 3 games in the last 13 going back to 2013. England have won 6 out of 14 over the same time span.

So if you look at results on a longer basis England are often a better team than most people give them credit for.

Arrogant statement. Algeria played better football than England this tournament.

England couldn't score a goal against Costa Rica. They were not going to get past Algeria in a group. Certainly not this year. Algeria were an extremely good team. Look how well they played Germany tonight.

Why is is so hard for some to accept England are now a lesser team than countries like Algeria? They can become better, but fans, media, players and coaches first need to admit they aren't good enough, instead of clinging to this belief that they are still better than all the third world countries.

It's a weird sort of colonial arrogance still at play.

Well they'll prob still one of the top teams in Europe but the rest of the world is catching over (and in some cases now way better then England)

England probably about 17 or 18 in the world

Yeah, we couldn't score against Costa Rica (who defeated both Italy and Uruguay) in a dead rubber game, so we wouldn't have progressed ahead of Algeria. Infallible logic.

There was always a good chance we'd fail to progress from a group containing two other top teams.

Don't kid yourself about England being in a really difficult group. Italy are a badly ageing side, and no amount of BBC pundit sucking up to Pirlo every bloody time he touches the ball will change that. They are no better than a team like Russia at the moment, imho. Solid, but beatable. But you can rest assured Italy won't coast on their reputations and will reorganise their side accordingly

Uruaguay are not a "top team". They are an average side with one truly world class player (Suarez) who was barely fit when he played England. Enough with the excuses already.

It's not like England had to deal with Brazil, Holland, France, Germany, Argentina or one of the truly elite squads at the moment.

I remember when the draw was made how everyone proclaimed our group as piss easy with Honduras, Greece and Algeria being the teams everyone wanted to avoid.

All the teams England play are terrible and all other teams who look decent for these four games every few years I see them are MILES BETTER than England.

Why do we not have a forum dedicated to revisionism?

Ironically, England's downfall at this World Cup was caused by something we are supposed to be good at - defending long balls and crosses. Certainly more players are needed who are international rather than club class, but there are no really outstanding international teams at present so there's the potential for England to be competitive.

I think in the FIFA rankings England should be between the the lost city of Atlantis and Timbuktu.

England arent as good as they think they are, or as good as their FIFA ranking.

Algeria are clearly not better than England. having said that though. trying to use the excuse of being in a tough group really isn't going to fly when Costa Rica managed to take maximum points off the same supposedly "top" teams England failed to take even a point off.

I also find it hilarious that people that used qualifier results as the be-all and end-all to defend England against any and every criticism are now defending poor results when it really matter.

we can argue all day about who they are or aren't better than (and for the record, I can't really see how anyone can disagree that the likes of Colombia, Chile, and Belgium are currently better than them), but I don't think there can be any argument whatsoever that at tournaments (ie when it really counts), England very rarely play like they're better than many of the teams they're supposed to be better than