Roiling football blather

[IdleRich]

Yeah, I've read it before too but I guess it's still funny the second time.

 

[baboon2004]

Not to the same extent he didn't. Which results did he have as bad as 0-0 with Macedonia at home? On top of that he always qualified with ease, even after getting stuck with a bad hand by Keegan. Eriksson played 67 games and lost 10, mostly in the later stages of major tournaments; McClaren played 18 games and lost 5 of them, mainly in a piss poor group in the qualifying stages of the European Cup - surely you wouldn't seriously try and compare those records?

Eriksson: 2-2 with Macedonia at home!! At least Steve didn't concede...

Um, a last minute free kick from La Beckham (2002) doesn't strike me as qualifying with ease...how quickly we forget....

I agree that Eriksson's record looks good on paper, but having had the misfortune to watch many of the games he presided over, they were bloody dreadful most of the time. His reputation was built on that 5-1 game, which, when watched in the cold light of day, wasn't as much a thrashing (in terms of chances etc) as was made out.

 

[crackerjack]

if you're going to change keeper and you have a friendly the weekend before, why not give him a game in that?

He did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdleRich
I know it's judging personality by the internet and something you're (perhaps rightly at least in this instance) very much not in favour of but I'm amazed to discover that you are interested in football Gek.

Ooh, I dunno. For a man who craves extreme capitlalism as a means to pave the way for its own destruction, football seems the ideal sport.

 

[baboon2004]

And that 2002 draw with greece, lest we forget, relied on Germany drawing 0-0 with Finland to put England through. OK, so we would've qualified via the play-offs, but that group only had one half-decent team in (Germany), whereas McClaren's had two, plus Israel, who have lost one at home in 18 or 19 matches?

 

[baboon2004]

Oh, and does anyone remember France's 1994 WOrld Cup qualifying campaign (Israel and Bulgaria, ffs)? And does anyone then remember what happened four years later?

Yes, England are shit, but so too, frequently, are most other world teams.

 

[crackerjack]

Eriksson: 2-2 with Macedonia at home!! At least Steve didn't concede...

Um, a last minute free kick from La Beckham (2002) doesn't strike me as qualifying with ease...how quickly we forget....

I agree that Eriksson's record looks good on paper, but having had the misfortune to watch many of the games he presided over, they were bloody dreadful most of the time. His reputation was built on that 5-1 game, which, when watched in the cold light of day, wasn't as much a thrashing (in terms of chances etc) as was made out.

McLaren is statistically the worst England manager ever, with 5 defeats in 18 games. Sven, iirc, only lost one qualifier in his time in charge and while we DO remember the dismal Greece match, that was to decide who came second, not third. No Beckham free kick and we'd still hae been in the play-offs for WC spot.

I'm no fan of Sven, and think he should've been sacked in 2004, but comparing his record to Mac's is a non-starter.

 

[IdleRich]

"Eriksson: 2-2 with Macedonia at home!! At least Steve didn't concede..."

At least Eriksson scored.

"Um, a last minute free kick from La Beckham (2002) doesn't strike me as qualifying with ease...how quickly we forget...."

OK - I withdraw the "with ease" bit but the important part was the qualifying surely.

"I agree that Eriksson's record looks good on paper, but having had the misfortune to watch many of the games he presided over, they were bloody dreadful most of the time. His reputation was built on that 5-1 game, which, when watched in the cold light of day, wasn't as much a thrashing (in terms of chances etc) as was made out"

Don't get me wrong, Eriksson was (almost) equally guilty of not getting the best out of players and, you're right, the 5-1 was just one of those funny games where every shot goes in, I don't think it was a great performance.

"Ooh, I dunno. For a man who craves extreme capitlalism as a means to pave the way for its own destruction, football seems the ideal sport."

Suddenly it all begins to make sense.

 

[gek-opel]

Ooh, I dunno. For a man who craves extreme capitlalism as a means to pave the way for its own destruction, football seems the ideal sport.

Heheheh...

 

[IdleRich]

"And that 2002 draw with greece, lest we forget, relied on Germany drawing 0-0 with Finland to put England through. OK, so we would've qualified via the play-offs, but that group only had one half-decent team in (Germany), whereas McClaren's had two, plus Israel, who have lost one at home in 18 or 19 matches?"

I wouldn't really say Russia are half-decent... and Croatia aren't exactly world class despite what everyone is saying (watch them go and win the thing now) - the reason they looked good is 'cause none of the other teams are good. Israel are a terrible side, none of their players would get in the England side, we should beat them, it's that simple.
However you spin it, England's group was easy and they should have qualified at a canter.

 

[baboon2004]

McLaren is statistically the worst England manager ever, with 5 defeats in 18 games. Sven, iirc, only lost one qualifier in his time in charge and while we DO remember the dismal Greece match, that was to decide who came second, not third. No Beckham free kick and we'd still hae been in the play-offs for WC spot.

I'm no fan of Sven, and think he should've been sacked in 2004, but comparing his record to Mac's is a non-starter.

There is some truth, but Sven was never in a group with two sides as good as Russia and Croatia. That was my point, and why we were never in any danger of finishing 3rd in the 2002 group. This time, there was a real challenge, and one that I think Sven would've failed too.

You can't slam McLaren too much for failing a test that Sven, for example, never passed. Look at MacLaren's record - 'he' lost to Croatia and Russia, two very good footballing sides at home. He beat Russia and Israel both 3-0, and (if friendlies even count at all in our assessments) drew with Brazil and Holland, and thrashed Greece.

Sigh - the sepia-tinged viewing of Sven's reign (albeit only in comparison to Mac) has begun as I feared...

 

[IdleRich]

Sigh - the sepia-tinged viewing of Sven's reign (albeit only in comparison to Mac) has begun as I feared...

It's hardly sepia tinted to say that a manager who got to the second round of three major tournaments is more successful than one who failed to qualify at the first attempt and has the highest loss-to-game ratio of any England manager. All I'm saying is that Sven was better than McClaren - but he wasn't good enough, I'd be the first to agree with that.

 

[hucks]

and Croatia aren't exactly world class despite what everyone is saying (watch them go and win the thing now) - the reason they looked good is 'cause none of the other teams are good.

But they can pass and move, they have belief but not over confidence, their coach knows what he's doing, they can execute a plan. I thought it was brilliant that they really wanted to win last night - tells you a lot about a team. And you don't have to be world class to do well at a tournament - Greece last time, Denmark in 1992. They're 16-1 at the moment, so if that drifts, they've got to be worth an each way punt.

Russia, though, Russia are awful, and all of the "over paid but underperforming"-type criticisms you can throw at England equally apply to them. Until last night I though they were the only team in international football more mentally frail than England. They've done their best not to qualify, too.

 

[crackerjack]

There is some truth, but Sven was never in a group with two sides as good as Russia and Croatia. That was my point, and why we were never in any danger of finishing 3rd in the 2002 group. This time, there was a real challenge, and one that I think Sven would've failed too.

You can't slam McLaren too much for failing a test that Sven, for example, never passed. Look at MacLaren's record - 'he' lost to Croatia and Russia, two very good footballing sides at home. He beat Russia and Israel both 3-0, and (if friendlies even count at all in our assessments) drew with Brazil and Holland, and thrashed Greece.

Sigh - the sepia-tinged viewing of Sven's reign (albeit only in comparison to Mac) has begun as I feared...

Croatia are a decent side, Russia less so. For Euro 2004 Sven topped a group containing Turkey, who'd just been WC semi-finalists. In fact, iirc Sven topped all 3 of his qualification campaigns.

 

[baboon2004]

I wouldn't really say Russia are half-decent... and Croatia aren't exactly world class despite what everyone is saying (watch them go and win the thing now) - the reason they looked good is 'cause none of the other teams are good. Israel are a terrible side, none of their players would get in the England side, we should beat them, it's that simple.
However you spin it, England's group was easy and they should have qualified at a canter.

Easy maybe, but more difficult than Sven had it. You seriously believe Sven's England would've won in Russia? There's no evidence (one freak result aside) that this would've happened.

I can't find the stats, but aren't Israel pretty good at home? 2006 quals - they were UNDEFEATED. PLease stop this patronising assessment of non-Western European teams.

As with Croatia. They're bloody good.

 

[crackerjack]

But they can pass and move, they have belief but not over confidence, their coach knows what he's doing, they can execute a plan. I thought it was brilliant that they really wnated to win last night - tells you a lot about a team. And you don't have to be world class to do well at a tournament - Greece last time, Denamrk in 1992. They're 16-1 at the moment, so if that drifts, they've got to be worth an each way punt.

Russia, though, Russia are awful, and all of the "over paid but underperforming"-type criticisms you can throw at England equally apply to them. Until last night I though they were the only team in international football more mentally frail than England. They've done their best not to qualify, too.

This is spot on.

 

[IdleRich]

"I thought it was brilliant that they really wnated to win last night"

Yeah, me too, I wonder how many of England's players would have been fighting to the last minute in a game that didn't matter to them.

 

[hucks]

There is some truth, but Sven was never in a group with two sides as good as Russia and Croatia.

Sigh - the sepia-tinged viewing of Sven's reign (albeit only in comparison to Mac) has begun as I feared...

Well, the set up was a bit different, with play offs and everything, but Turkey in the 2004 qualifying group were miles better than Russia now. They'd just got to the semis at the World Cup. Sven's England beat them 2-0 at home, and drew 0-0 away, both really good performances.

 

[baboon2004]

Croatia are a decent side, Russia less so. For Euro 2004 Sven topped a group containing Turkey, who'd just been WC semi-finalists. In fact, iirc Sven topped all 3 of his qualification campaigns.

Given, the 2-0 vs Turkey (at Sunderland?) was the best i've seen an England side play in God knows how long. But looking at Sven's record, he had a lot of easy games in qualifying too. The matches vs Slovakia and Macedonia were bloody awful.

Also, don't underestimate just how talismanic Rooney is. With him at 2004 - 4-2 vs Croatia, where England played another blinder. Without him, not so good.

 

[IdleRich]

"Easy maybe, but more difficult than Sven had it. You seriously believe Sven's England would've won in Russia? There's no evidence (one freak result aside) that this would've happened.

I can't find the stats, but aren't Israel pretty good at home? 2006 quals - they were UNDEFEATED. PLease stop this patronising assessment of non-Western European teams."

Well, it's hard to say what would have happened obviously but I think they would have done better. Remember a draw would have probably been enough.
It's not a "patronising assessment of non-Western European teams" it's just the fact that Israel, player-for-player, are not as good as England. Yes, it's obviously hard to go to Israel (see Liverpool) but not really for footballing reasons and that doesn't make them a good side.
What is your point anyway Baboon - McClaren is better than Eriksson?

 

[baboon2004]

Well, it's hard to say what would have happened obviously but I think they would have done better. Remember a draw would have probably been enough.
It's not a "patronising assessment of non-Western European teams" it's just the fact that Israel, player-for-player, are not as good as England. Yes, it's obviously hard to go to Israel (see Liverpool) but not really for footballing reasons and that doesn't make them a good side.
What is your point anyway Baboon - McClaren is better than Eriksson?

Not atall - just that I don't think he's necessarily any worse, and that doing him down also contributes to revisionism regarding Sven's reign. For better or worse, at least Mac gave us a vision of a different world by dropping Beckham. Ah, he brought him back. Shit.

Ok, 'patronising' was harsh - wasn't directed specifically at you, but more at the way I think the media/a lot of people underestimate teams not from W Europe. Croatia are a great side, and have consistently challenged the best sides in the world when they have played them. Israel, meanwhile, came within two points of topping a group featuring France, Switzerland and the Rep of Ireland. They're nobody's mugs - I think England played pretty well (not great, admittedly) to beat them 3-0.