Roiling football blather

[IdleRich]

"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."

Croatia are a tidy, well-organised and intelligent side - but I don't think that they are world class.
When England beat Israel 3-0 they didn't play especially well, it was just clear that a load of premiership players can easily overpower what is essentially a championship level side and it showed how short of ideas England had been in Telaviv.

 

[baboon2004]

Croatia are a tidy, well-organised and intelligent side - but I don't think that they are world class.
When England beat Israel 3-0 they didn't play especially well, it was just clear that a load of premiership players can easily overpower what is essentially a championship level side and it showed how short of ideas England had been in Telaviv.

Have to agree to differ regarding Croatia.

As for Israel, objectively they aren't great - can't argue with that - but the fact remains that many, many sides have failed to beat them in Tel Aviv. That England failed to beat them cannot be used as a mark of failure.

 

[crackerjack]

Have to agree to differ regarding Croatia.

As for Israel, objectively they aren't great - can't argue with that - but the fact remains that many, many sides have failed to beat them in Tel Aviv. That England failed to beat them cannot be used as a mark of failure.

I kinda agree with that, but the fact is under Mac England drew with Israel and with Macedonia and lost twice to Croatia and once to Russia. No one single result mmakes Mac a crap manager, but that combination certainly does. You can isolate shit results under Sven but you won't find a piss poor pattern to match the above.

 

[baboon2004]

I kinda agree with that, but the fact is under Mac England drew with Israel and with Macedonia and lost twice to Croatia and once to Russia. No one single result mmakes Mac a crap manager, but that combination certainly does. You can isolate shit results under Sven but you won't find a piss poor pattern to match the above.

Yes, but those results didn't come in a sequence like that. Inbetween, Russia and Israel were both outplayed by England at Wembley.

Remember 1-4 against Denmark and the loss in Belfast (sandwiching a 1-0 vs Wales - as a Welsh supporter too, I can confirm that that is a wretched result)? People were then saying Sven was the worst manager ever.

The truth, as always, is somewhere inbetween. If Sven was better, it was marginal. Not to say Sven isn't a good club boss, which he clearly is.

 

[crackerjack]

Yes, but those results didn't come in a sequence like that.

No, but they all came in the same group, which is what matters.

Remember 1-4 against Denmark and the loss in Belfast (sandwiching a 1-0 vs Wales - as a Welsh supporter too, I can confirm that that is a wretched result)? People were then saying Sven was the worst manager ever.

The truth, as always, is somewhere inbetween. If Sven was better, it was marginal. Not to say Sven isn't a good club boss, which he clearly is.

Friendlies are irrelevant and citing them only underlines you've got a weak case. The NI performance was a disgrace, but it was the only competitive match Sven lost outside of tournaments proper. In a 5 year reign, that's nothing to sniff at. I'd agree this group was just about the toughest we've faced in a while, but the fact is England slipped from 1st every time under Sven to third under Mac. That's more than a marginal difference.

 

[IdleRich]

"Remember 1-4 against Denmark..."

That was a friendly - doesn't mean anything.

"..and the loss in Belfast"

That was a terrible result agreed. Still, it was possible to qualify though. I think that Crackerjack's point is that McClaren's stinkers were grouped together closely enough that we didn't qualify whereas Sexy Sven's weren't.
I can see why the FA chose Sven though, he had a good record at top level club management (and he's made a pretty good start after going back to it). McClaren never did anything except a long cup round that mainly seemed to consist of heroically coming back from 3-0 time and time again.
Anyway, I think that everyone is agreed that neither of them was good enough, what shocks me is that when McClaren was chosen everyone knew that he wasn't good enough but he still got the job. In that respect I feel sorry for him becuase he was up against a hostile media from the start. Anyway, I hope that they don't fuck it up again. They've got to get someone who has a proven track record and won't be scared away by the press been on his case the second he looks like fucking up.

 

[baboon2004]

Well, you've kinda admitted now that it was the toughest group we've faced in a while, which was my whole point. Sven was never tested in the same way, and it remains to be seen if he could've coped.

England were only first in 2002 due to a moment of Beckham genius. Nothing at all to do with Sven.

Possibly even more to the point, Sven could rely time and time again upon Owen as a proven goalscorer in his era. Again, that's the player's form (replicated at club level, after all) saving England, and not managerial acumen. In contrast, who could McLaren rely upon? He was unlucky yesterday that Rooney was out.

 

[IdleRich]

"Well, you've kinda admitted now that it was the toughest group we've faced in a while, which was my whole point. Sven was never tested in the same way, and it remains to be seen if he could've coped."

No way, I'm not admitting that at all. When McClaren saw the group he must have been laughing. Even agreeing to disagree about how good Croatia are there is no excuse for not finishing above a very mediocre Russia.

 

[baboon2004]

No way, I'm not admitting that at all. When McClaren saw the group he must have been laughing. Even agreeing to disagree about how good Croatia are there is no excuse for not finishing above a very mediocre Russia.

No, there's not much of an excuse, but Moscow was an absolute cauldron, and football history is full of examples of teams which crumple in such an atmosphere, which pretty much shreds the form-book. Germany aside, in which comparable stadium/atmosphere did Sven's England win?

 

[boombox]

We lack the skills that link individual players into a team. It is blatant that in terms of technical ability - first touch, first-time pass, balance - we haven't a single world-class player.
It is also clear that our players are mentally slow-witted. Under pressure, they panic. Susceptible to nerves, our strengths - work ethic, directness, physicality - dissipate and there are no basics to fall back on.

 

[crackerjack]

No, there's not much of an excuse, but Moscow was an absolute cauldron, and football history is full of examples of teams which crumple in such an atmosphere, which pretty much shreds the form-book. Germany aside, in which comparable stadium/atmosphere did Sven's England win?

They got a draw in Turkey in comparable circumstances, a result which would've done just fine in Russia too.

 

[IdleRich]

"No, there's not much of an excuse, but Moscow was an absolute cauldron, and football history is full of examples of teams which crumple in such an atmosphere, which pretty much shreds the form-book. Germany aside, in which comparable stadium/atmosphere did Sven's England win?"

Well, like I said, they didn't need to win. In which similar situation did Sven's side lose?
The point is, I'm not saying Sven was great, I'm just saying that McClaren was worse which should be uncontroversial enough.
I just want a manager that gets the players playing something like as well as they do at their clubs - is that really too much to ask?

 

[boombox]

I just want a manager that gets the players playing something like as well as they do at their clubs...

They are.

 

[crackerjack]

They are.

No they're not.

 

[boombox]

What, in your opinion, are the great strengths of Gerrard and Lampard? I don't think that high energy and long-range shots are as effective in a less free-form style of football that relies on creativity.

 

[baboon2004]

They got a draw in Turkey in comparable circumstances, a result which would've done just fine in Russia too.

It wasn't a penalty for definite, so, we kind of did draw...

 

[crackerjack]

What, in your opinion, are the great strengths of Gerrard and Lampard? I don't think that high energy and long-range shots are as effective in a less free-form style of football that relies on creativity.

Those qualities are nothing to sneeze at, nor are they the limit of their abilities. Both are capable of defence-splitting passes, both score regularly, Gerrard is a strong tackler, capable defensive midfielder and a good crosser. Sadly both give the ball away too often, which is why they shouldn't be playing centrally at the same time.

The bulk of the England squad play regularly for teams that have provided 3 CL finalists and 3 semi-finalists in the last 3 years. English football has technical shortcomings, true, but playing anywhere near their proper level they are in the world's top 10, easy.

 

[IdleRich]

"They are."

If no-one was injured England would probably have most if not all of the following players (off the top of my head): Neville, Rooney, Ferdinand and Hargreaves (from United) along with Crouch and Gerrard (from Liverpool) and Cole, Terry, Cole and maybe Lampard (from Chelsea). In other words, the majority of the players would be drawn from teams that would take the piss out of the sides the personnel of Israel, Russia or even Croatia play for - yet somehow they can't do the same when they pull on a white shirt. Why is that?

 

[IdleRich]

"What, in your opinion, are the great strengths of Gerrard and Lampard? I don't think that high energy and long-range shots are as effective in a less free-form style of football that relies on creativity."

If you can hit long range shots that go in I think that's pretty valuable at any level.
Gerrard and Lampard both play in the Champions League regularly and with a pretty good degree of success. I think that it has been generally recognised for some time that Champions League football is of a higher standard than international football (would you disagree?) so I ask again, why can't they do it against a load of Championship standard players who happen to be wearing the national colours of Israel?

 

[baboon2004]

Those qualities are nothing to sneeze at, nor are they the limit of their abilities. Both are capable of defence-splitting passes, both score regularly, Gerrard is a strong tackler, capable defensive midfielder and a good crosser. Sadly both give the ball away too often, which is why they shouldn't be playing centrally at the same time.

The bulk of the England squad play regularly for teams that have provided 3 CL finalists and 3 semi-finalists in the last 3 years. English football has technical shortcomings, true, but playing anywhere near their proper level they are in the world's top 10, easy.

Gerrard is amazing at his best. Needs a Makalele type though.

Yeah, they play for very, very good teams, but teams in which it may be difficult to discern the impact of English players as against foreign players. Either way, the 11/16 chosen can't play together as a team to save their lives - is that just lack of flexibility?