England v Croatia

Milanista said:
I agree. Italy's depth has always been very strong. No Gattuso means De Rossi plays, another world class midfielder. No Toni or Di Natale, no problem we have Lucarelli, Inzaghi or Quagliarella. We recently lost Totti and Nesta, who are world class but we still cope and defend well. When you watch Italy play, there is always motivation or passion.
Click to expand...


Good point Stef:)
 
Vannizzlefashizzal said:
Milanista am I right in thinking that unlike england, italy pick the in-form players,regardless how "popular" they are?
Click to expand...

Yeah i think Milanesta got a point there.for instance whatever Mickael"injury prone"Owen'form he will always get picked and more he will always start in the first eleven.just look at his record this season..
Now look at Inzaghi this season,he hasn't had particulary a good season so far,result?he's not picked fot the crucial game against Scotland.
Do you see that happen with England?
 
This has always been the case, so it was refreshing when Mclaren dropped Beckham and Lampard. It looked like he was going to start a fresh team and pick players playing well.

Carragher constantly overlooked regardless of him being one of the most consistent players in the country, and Darren Bent has always been overlooked even when in the form of his life.

If we don't pick players when they're at their best, we're losing so much talent. Half of the England squad play shit for England because they know they'll walk back into the team regardless. I bet Lampard didn't like being dropped as I think he was one of the players who thought he'd be guaranteed a place just because of his name.
 
I said at the start of this thread that we wouldn't be comfortable with the 4-3-3/4-5-1 formation. WHY fuck around with a system that doesn't work? 4-4-2 is the only way England can play. Oh well, at least McClown is gone. Jose Mourinho please, thanks.
 
The whole Lampard vs Gerrard shit has got to stop.
I cant accept that a good manager can not make 2 best midfielders in england work together on the same park.

And while your guys hatred of Lampard(Chelsea cough cough) puts constant over-pressure on him you guys are so invested you are too embarrassed to point out all of Gerrards flaws for england and he can walk away from constant poor performances without criticism.

Just imagine if Lampard had missed that chance against Russia it barley got mentioned because it was Steven (i cant do no wrong) Gerrard.

PS, before Lampard you all hated Beckham
 
Gerrard does get his fair share of critisism mate. Maybe not to the extent of Lampard, but Gerrard generally plays better than Lampard (which doesn't say much). Gerrard and Lampard are awful for England, whether they play together or not. Gerrard is a a lazy sod at times.
 
embraceuk1 said:
The whole Lampard vs Gerrard shit has got to stop.
I cant accept that a good manager can not make 2 best midfielders in england work together on the same park.

And while your guys hatred of Lampard(Chelsea cough cough) puts constant over-pressure on him you guys are so invested you are too embarrassed to point out all of Gerrards flaws for england and he can walk away from constant poor performances without criticism.

Just imagine if Lampard had missed that chance against Russia it barley got mentioned because it was Steven (i cant do no wrong) Gerrard.

PS, before Lampard you all hated Beckham
Click to expand...

Good post mate. :applause:

Lampard is a great player. It's just that a team playing 4-4-2 HAS to have balance in it's midfield i.e. a holding midfielder and an attacking-minded midfielder.
 
Just like to add...
Also Italy have the likes of -
Aquilani(gonna be world class some day)
Montilivio(look above)
Miccoli
Pazzini

There's more but I can't think of right now.

Heck they could probably call on
a player like Vannuchi and he'll
do a great job.(when's the last time he had a call up?)

Fact is alot of England's 2nd/3rd string is rather poor
Jenas, Barton, A.Johnson etc..are just not good enough

And like said form players are overlooked quite a bit.
 
Plan M said:
Good post mate. :applause:

Lampard is a great player. It's just that a team playing 4-4-2 HAS to have balance in it's midfield i.e. a holding midfielder and an attacking-minded midfielder.
Click to expand...

And that player shouldn't be Lampard.
Yet he keeps getting picked for England based on name.

Embrace, I hate the cunt more than any other, but have no bias against him and my views on the way football should be played.

I never slated Beckham and I don't think I can only name Jenas, P. Neville and Downing as players I have been against.

Yes there are massive flaws in Gerrard's game, but a lot of that is due to the insistence of the manager to play Lampard alongside him instead of the right player for the team.
Gerrard showed some very good form when alongside Hargreaves and Barry.
Lampard is back in and both are shit.

It HAS to stop.

I don't mind if it is Lampard OR Gerrard, but not both and out the 2 Lampard must go if we insist on playing a 4-4-2
 
steevio_uk said:
I don't mind if it is Lampard OR Gerrard, but not both and out the 2 Lampard must go if we insist on playing a 4-4-2
Click to expand...

We don't have the players to play a 4-4-2.

Think about it - no really outstanding wingers, two short arses up front (one of which isn't really a front line striker anyway) and the only genuine target man only gets the nod from the bench.

It's not like an English footballer cannot comprehend anything but 4-4-2, half of them don't play 4-4-2 for their clubs! There is no Anglo-Saxon 4-4-2 gene.

MacClaren wasn't good enough to coach his players in any other system but the one he was familiar with. They get sent out badly prepared, they get badly beat. Simple.
 
I know mate, i'd love to see us try something different and get out of this symmetrical rut we keep ourselves in.

Though if we keep it, I wouldn't mind a middle 4 of: Young - Gerrard - Hargreaves - SWP

But then that leaves out Joe Cole!

Put Joe Cole the top of a midfield 3 with Hargreaves and Barry supporting, give him the number 10, give him the ball and let's win the world cup :lol:
 
T Butcher fan said:
We don't have the players to play a 4-4-2.

Think about it - no really outstanding wingers, two short arses up front (one of which isn't really a front line striker anyway) and the only genuine target man only gets the nod from the bench.

It's not like an English footballer cannot comprehend anything but 4-4-2, half of them don't play 4-4-2 for their clubs!
Click to expand...

I disagree sorry mate. Man United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal (and at times Chelsea) all play 4-4-2. We DO have the players for this formation. If we had played Barry and Gerrard in middle last night with Joe Cole and Beckham on the wings from the start we WOULD have won. I would put money on it.

We started with a system that no England player was comfy with, a goalkeeper with NO experience and conceded two early goals. If it was 4-4-2 from the beginning it would of been totally different. (BTW I am NOT excusing England, they have been shite all campaign).
 
Last edited:
Barry was out of his depth last night. I'd be surprised if he gets another look in. SWP and Young aren't ever going to be international class either.

3-5-2? Richards and Cole as wing backs? Hargreaves holding for Gerrard and Super Frank or Joe Cole?

I dunno, there's a lot of possibilities - we have a few decent central based midfielders to choose from so I'd like to see them getting picked in a system that suits them. We're not as strong in any other aspect of the game. That's my view.
 
Clockender said:
All this talk of quotas is bollocks. It won't improve anything. How many foreign players played in the English league between 1966 and 1996? Not many. How many tournaments did England win during this period? None, nada, zilch, fuck all. That's simply because we are not good enough! Grass roots football in the country is all wrong. Its improving but it still needs a shake up, we simply don't produce enough quality youngsters. That's not down to the foreign players in the prem is it? Think about it.
Click to expand...



Not only that, it was the lack of quality English players that lead to so many Foreigners coming into the Premier League in the first place.
 
DagsJT said:
If we got a coach like Capello, it could do I suppose.
Click to expand...

When England keep it simple they win matches! All these systems, formations etc - it's all bollocks. DONT COMPLICATE THE SIMPLE GAME. We play 4-4-2 in the Prem and our international team should do so. Pick your best 11 players, keep it simple, keep it tight, KEEP THE BALL for longer spells and score goals! We need a coach, someone with balls to boss the players and install a winning mentality. Under Ericsson and McClown we always looked nervous. We DO HAVE THE PLAYERS!
 
Plan M said:
I disagree sorry mate. Man United, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal (and at times Chelsea) all play 4-4-2. We DO have the players for this formation.
Click to expand...

United don't play a classic 4-4-2. Every position is interchangeable.

Liverpool do, but often change their set up from week to week.

Chelsea occasionally do play 4-4-2 but it's usually 4-3-3. All this proves that these players are more than capable of adapting.

Spurs contributed a couple of subs, and Arsenal contributed no players at all so I don't see much point in discussing what they do.

And Beckham wasn't fit, which is why he didn't start.
 
I just don't see anything other than 4-4-2 working for England. It has never worked in the past.
 
If we can't adapt to learning other systems, we become predictable. And maybe that's the problem. We're already so used to 4-4-2 that we fall apart doing anything else. And even when we play 4-4-2, teams know how we play and can have a plan to stop it.

We need a tactically aware manager that's willing to grab the team by the scruff of the neck, rough it up and get changes. Because we've become stale. The management, the players, the system, everything. Stale and predictable. At least the management as gone, now the new manager can work on players and system.
 
if i may add my thoughts to this conversation, i'd say u guys are focusing too much on the individual quality of the players.

honestly italy (i'm mentioning italy coz i've got a pretty good knowledge of it :mrgreen:) has much more "depth" than most of the other countries, talking about quality players. we could line up 4 national teams and they would all be top class national teams.

but is this that rilevant? no.
does this makes us the greatest national team in the world? no.
would i say that italy is on another level, compared to a team like england? absolutely no.

the truth is that the individual quality of the players is not so important, when it's about national teams.
there are many aspects that come before the quality of the players.
when a coach gets a job the first thing he has to care about is deciding wich kind of football his team has to play.
then, he has to pick the right players, according to the type of football he decided to express (and they don't have to be necessarily the best players..... they have to be the most appropriate players for the duties the coach will assign to them).
then he has to explain the players what he expects from them. what he wants them to do. and, if needed, he has to teach them how to absolve those duties.
then he has to see how the whole thing work. how well the players follow his directives.
in the meanwhile, the players have to know each others, they have to learn what their teammates tend to do in every possible situation, wich are their tendencies, their natural movements. they have to build up the "chemistry".

each of theese phases requires time. hours, days, weeks of training sessions, of 5 vs 5 matches in the "little pitch"...

our national teams coaches don't have enough time to do this. so they just have to decide wich type of football they want their team to play and then pick the most appropriate players for each role (according to the duties the coach wants to assign to each role).

the coach doesn't have the time to explain what he expects from the player...... he doesn't have the time to let the players realize what they have to do on the pitch.... the players don't have the time to learn new movements. they can't play in a different way, they don't have enough time to build up that "chemistry"......

so they have to be ready to play the type of football the coach wants them to play even before they are picked by the coach.
because the coach will have just 1 week to spend with them and he won't be able to teach them something new in such a few days..... and the players won't have the time to learn their teammates movements in such a few days.

this things are the fundamentals, the basics of football. a world class player can raise the level of a team....... but first u need a team! wich means 11 guys playing together, according to specifics schemes.
once u have a team, then a "pirlo" or a "terry" or a "villa" can be the "cherry on the cake", the value added of the team.
but first u need 11 players that can make 5 consecutive passes.... first u need 11 players who know what their teammates will tend to do in every possible situation.
if u don't take care about the team first, then the "world class players" won't be able to do a lot..... they won't be able to express those qualities they usually show in their own clubs. because in their clubs u will already find that "chemistry".

i'll take as example the national team i know best; italy :mrgreen:
we have many midfielders and defenders who would be starters in almost every national team in the world. just consider guys like de rossi, aquilani, ambrosini, donadel, perrotta, montolivo, volpi, morfeo, liverani, (and theese are just some of our best central midfielders. there are many others central midfielders, like vannucchi, guana, blasi, etc. who are not as good as them, but who are still better than many other national teams central midfielders).
they are all much better than gattuso, of course.
but still gattuso is the starter in our formation.
and this is not because donadoni (or lippi, before him) are crazy. this happens because theese coaches decided to play with a pure playmaker (pirlo). so it's mostly important to have a pure defensive midfielder to play beside him, one who can focus his attention on the "dirty job". and Gattuso, despite being overall worse than de rossi, is the best pick for this duty.

the same goes for the defense. Barzagli is much better than materazzi, no doubt about it.... but materazzi is the best player to play beside cannavaro. so materazzi is our new starter (since nesta retired).
but if cannavaro wouldn't play (for an injury or a retirement or whatever) and donadoni would decide to pick dainelli, then barzagli would be the most appropriate cb to play beside him.... much more appropriate than materazzi.

in the last year, we had 2 main game systems; 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1
when donadoni lines up the 4-2-3-1 we don't play with a playmaker anymore (pirlo). so the midfield couple becomes de rossi-ambrosini or de rossi-gattuso (sooner it will become de rossi-aquilani), with perrotta playing upfront. and perrotta plays with our national team just when donadoni decides to play with this game system; otherwise he's out (despite being a top class player).

i could go on, talking about how di natale took del piero's spot in our national team, or talking about why oddo (who is a great rb) usually doesn't play for italy...
but i guess u already understood my points.

national teams are different from clubs. our national team players come from different game systems, different coaches (with different mentalities and believes). they don't have enough time to change anything in their game style. so they can just do exactly what they do in their own club teams.
it's up to the coach to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

it's impossible for england coach (no matter who he is) to call gerrard and tell him "ok steven, i know u're not used to it, but when u play for england u have to play 10 meters behind your usual position"
it's impossible to call lampard and tell him "frank, when u play for me, u always have to look at your backs before pushing, coz here u don't have the same freedom u got in chelsea".

those guys acquired their own gamestyle, by training for hours each day for months or years... we just can't expect them to learn something new in a couple of days.

so the coach must have to courage to take unpopular decision, if needed (as a friend told me a couple of days ago).
he has to care about the team first, then the players.
once u have a team, u can think to the "world class players". but having many world class players doesn't mean having a great national team.

just look at what greece achieved in the last euro tournament. they sure hadn't more quality than the other teams. but still they won. do u think it was a coincidence? then u have a lot to learn about football.
do u think it's a coincidence if every national team guided by hiddink becomes a good team??

on the other side take a look at spain. they have a great footballing tradition, they have so many top class players, they have a starting 11 formation wich is probably the best in the world, talking about quality. they have top quality players for every position, for every role. even more than italy, france and netherlands. but still they never won anything.

and i think that if spain would play 10 consecutive times against italy, italy would beat spain, 7, 8 times.
but i do also think that if italy would play 10 times against "greece 2004", well we would be lucky if we would win 4,5 times.

sooner or later england will find a coach who will be able to build a team. that day your top class players will be able to express their abilities and england will become a "winning team"
...... maybe it will happen next year, maybe later :)
 
Completely agree. We have chemistry and depth. A bonus is the fact that some players play together, such as Pirlo/Gattuso/Ambrosini, hence they work great together in the same time.
 
Milanista said:
Completely agree. We have chemistry and depth.
Click to expand...

yep, at the moment it seems that we have both.

but while depth is not essential, chemistry is. that's why i talked about greece 2004. they didn't have the quality top teams have. they din't use to do anything special on the pitch. no buffon savings, no cristiano ronaldo dribblings, no pirlo openings.....

they used to play a simple, basic, plan football. but they were almost perfect! they could easily do 10 short consecutive passes. watching them playing u could clearely see they always knew what to do with the ball.

that's why i said english guys shouldn't really care about the quality of their players or about the formations...
first it takes to find a coach with enough charisma to let the players trust in him, with enough "strenght" to take unpopular decisions, with a clear idea of the type of football he wants to express.

everything else comes later.
 
Last edited:
after a huge laugh at the game final score reality struck me: who are Portugal going to beat in Euro 2008 other than our favourite european punch bag? bad news scolari.. no easy way through this time...
 
I have to say I enjoyed reading this thread..some here are very sharp while others have valid points but as a whole this has been the most enjoyable thread * beside the Arsenal still on top Thread by (clockender) ;)..thanks everyone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom