England v Iceland

Foden makes a big difference. Grealish played well as did Saka. I can't see any reason to put Chilwell back in that position. Trippier has no idea what to do in that role as presumably it's been designed for TAA.
The question for Southgate is whether he is brave enough to play the lads who can make a difference.

Ballard played well again but slipped up for Romania's goal. I doubt he'll play on Saturday given two internationals in a week.
 
Going back to the pre match comments on this thread, I find it hard to relate to a team when I've no idea who some of the team are, and people get more frequent starts for England than they do for their clubs.

I'm all for fast tracking talent but that's ridiculous.

It goes to show just how much the game is run by and for the Premier League clubs. The national team is a sideshow.

Of course we want them to do well in tournaments but until the best players in the League are English it won't happen.
 
Wizaard said:
Going back to the pre match comments on this thread, I find it hard to relate to a team when I've no idea who some of the team are, and people get more frequent starts for England than they do for their clubs.

I'm all for fast tracking talent but that's ridiculous.

It goes to show just how much the game is run by and for the Premier League clubs. The national team is a sideshow.

Of course we want them to do well in tournaments but until the best players in the League are English it won't happen.
Click to expand...
mmmm.... do we want another long thread? 😉 There's just one point in there that I can understand. where you're coming from.
 
I wasn't at all depressed when we lost to Belgium as I felt we played well, last night Southgate tweaked the midfield by playing just the one defensive midfielder and it worked a treat, you cannot leave players as good as Foden and Grealish on the bench as we need their creativity. 3-5-2 is a system I personally love as it allows you to play those creative players in a more central role as they have wing backs outside them who can do the donkey work of getting up and down the flanks, TAA and Saka are ideal for this role and we have plenty of options to cover them. What we did lack these last two games was pace up front but we do have Rashford, Sterling and (assuming he's not going to locked up for a few years soon) Greenwood to add to the squad. The big worry is we are weak at keeper and centre back, sadly these are two areas that will always kill us in the big tournaments against the top sides in Europe like France and Spain.
 
Raging_Bull said:
I wasn't at all depressed when we lost to Belgium as I felt we played well, last night Southgate tweaked the midfield by playing just the one defensive midfielder and it worked a treat, you cannot leave players as good as Foden and Grealish on the bench as we need their creativity. 3-5-2 is a system I personally love as it allows you to play those creative players in a more central role as they have wing backs outside them who can do the donkey work of getting up and down the flanks, TAA and Saka are ideal for this role and we have plenty of options to cover them. What we did lack these last two games was pace up front but we do have Rashford, Sterling and (assuming he's not going to locked up for a few years soon) Greenwood to add to the squad. The big worry is we are weak at keeper and centre back, sadly these are two areas that will always kill us in the big tournaments against the top sides in Europe like France and Spain.
Click to expand...

The problem with 3-5-2 is who plays '10'? Kane is still a shoe-in at '9' and anyone who thinks different is going to be disappointed. But there's no natural 10 as i see it. The 'hole' players in the squad like Sterling, Grealish, Rashford etc. are far more effective coming in off the wing and playing around a central player (Kane or C-L).
The positive with 3-5-2 is it suits Coady - who currently looks the best CB - whereas he rarely plays as a CB pair.

I'd go with a 4-3-3 as the basic line up though. Against 'weaker' teams, you'd play 1 defensive midfielder and more attacking/creative players. Like Grealish, Foden etc.
Against the better sides, you'd go with 2 defensive players to protect the CB's and go with pace either side of Kane to attack on the break.

Options though. Which is surely a good thing?
 
straightatthewall said:
The problem with 3-5-2 is who plays '10'? Kane is still a shoe-in at '9' and anyone who thinks different is going to be disappointed. But there's no natural 10 as i see it. The 'hole' players in the squad like Sterling, Grealish, Rashford etc. are far more effective coming in off the wing and playing around a central player (Kane or C-L).
The positive with 3-5-2 is it suits Coady - who currently looks the best CB - whereas he rarely plays as a CB pair.

I'd go with a 4-3-3 as the basic line up though. Against 'weaker' teams, you'd play 1 defensive midfielder and more attacking/creative players. Like Grealish, Foden etc.
Against the better sides, you'd go with 2 defensive players to protect the CB's and go with pace either side of Kane to attack on the break.

Options though. Which is surely a good thing?
Click to expand...
Agree. With regards to 3-5-2 , I think it's hard to find where Sterling fits into that system. As you say he is better out wide cutting in. With regards to the no 10 I do think either Grealish or Foden can play that role but is it their best position. Probably not. I think with those two you have to give them the licence to go where they want and the responsibility falls on other players to cover the gaps they leave should we be prone to counter attack. And of course there's Mount too. I did think Southgate gave a really good interview after the game with regards to those three with his comments regards physique and the giants of teams like France and Portugal.

I think it's hard to pick a best eleven. I think it does depend on the system we play and also who the opposition are. Certainly with regards to the forward thinking players. I think Kane and Sterling are a definite two and then you have Rashford, Grealish, Foden, Mount and SAncho competing for three places when you are up against the so called weaker teams, and then maybe just two of them if you are up against a top team that can hurt you and who are likely to have more of the ball than us. My own choice for three would be Grealish, Rashford and Foden and two Grealish and Foden. I don't think that would be Southgates choice though. I think as it stands he puts maybe Rashford and Mount above the others.
 
It's not a flat 3-5-2. It's 3-4-2-1. Grealish and Foden behind Kane last night. Would expect Sterling and Rashford to go into more of a 3-4-3 when available and move around Kane.

The three at the back looks a case of chucking enough muck and hoping some sticks because there is no dominant centre half pairing any more. One more body in there as cover for when someone has a brainfart. And when it goes to a line of five they can try and keep the ball away from Pickford. Who is an empty head but because he doesn't overthink things is good on penalties, and can kick long.

Loads of attacking options but if they misfire in the big pressure games then the defence will always let the side down. Watching the ease of the finish from Foden on his second last night I was thinking back to what if we'd been able to bring him on against Croatia in the second half of the WC semi. And then him just have a moment where he pops a daisy cutter into the corner to make it 2-0 whilst all around are trying to play keep ball. Kills the game before the fear sets in. But the reality is there's always one last opponent who is physically, technically, mentally and tactically better in those knock out situations. And just waits for us to get all our shit in first, spots the weakness and then does their thing.
 
poolfc2011 said:
It's not a flat 3-5-2. It's 3-4-2-1. Grealish and Foden behind Kane last night. Would expect Sterling and Rashford to go into more of a 3-4-3 when available and move around Kane.

The three at the back looks a case of chucking enough muck and hoping some sticks because there is no dominant centre half pairing any more. One more body in there as cover for when someone has a brainfart. And when it goes to a line of five they can try and keep the ball away from Pickford. Who is an empty head but because he doesn't overthink things is good on penalties, and can kick long.

Loads of attacking options but if they misfire in the big pressure games then the defence will always let the side down. Watching the ease of the finish from Foden on his second last night I was thinking back to what if we'd been able to bring him on against Croatia in the second half of the WC semi. And then him just have a moment where he pops a daisy cutter into the corner to make it 2-0 whilst all around are trying to play keep ball. Kills the game before the fear sets in. But the reality is there's always one last opponent who is physically, technically, mentally and tactically better in those knock out situations. And just waits for us to get all our shit in first, spots the weakness and then does their thing.
Click to expand...
Yep, harsh but accurate last part.
 
20togo said:
Agree. With regards to 3-5-2 , I think it's hard to find where Sterling fits into that system. As you say he is better out wide cutting in. With regards to the no 10 I do think either Grealish or Foden can play that role but is it their best position. Probably not. I think with those two you have to give them the licence to go where they want and the responsibility falls on other players to cover the gaps they leave should we be prone to counter attack. And of course there's Mount too. I did think Southgate gave a really good interview after the game with regards to those three with his comments regards physique and the giants of teams like France and Portugal.

I think it's hard to pick a best eleven. I think it does depend on the system we play and also who the opposition are. Certainly with regards to the forward thinking players. I think Kane and Sterling are a definite two and then you have Rashford, Grealish, Foden, Mount and SAncho competing for three places when you are up against the so called weaker teams, and then maybe just two of them if you are up against a top team that can hurt you and who are likely to have more of the ball than us. My own choice for three would be Grealish, Rashford and Foden and two Grealish and Foden. I don't think that would be Southgates choice though. I think as it stands he puts maybe Rashford and Mount above the others.
Click to expand...

For better or for worse, Southgate has placed a premium on continuity and players who have regularly made themselves available and not let him down. Nice piece on the BBC site regarding Pickford. He's getting a lot of stick for his Everton performances (and mistakes) but for England he hasn't made many (if any) big errors. So as his coach, why wouldn't Southgate stick with him? I guess the same applies to Dier, who i think most would not see as a starting CB for his club, let alone country (he's clearly better in midfield...) I don't think he'll start a real game, but you can see that Southgate likes what he brings to the squad as a whole.
 
Really enjoyed that game. I know Iceland are not the best but they beat them convincingly with some very decent individual performances. The likes of Grealish and Foden and Mount look class. Along with Stirling, Rashford and Kane we have the potential to hurt any team.
 
poolfc2011 said:
It's not a flat 3-5-2. It's 3-4-2-1. Grealish and Foden behind Kane last night. Would expect Sterling and Rashford to go into more of a 3-4-3 when available and move around Kane.

The three at the back looks a case of chucking enough muck and hoping some sticks because there is no dominant centre half pairing any more. One more body in there as cover for when someone has a brainfart. And when it goes to a line of five they can try and keep the ball away from Pickford. Who is an empty head but because he doesn't overthink things is good on penalties, and can kick long.

Loads of attacking options but if they misfire in the big pressure games then the defence will always let the side down. Watching the ease of the finish from Foden on his second last night I was thinking back to what if we'd been able to bring him on against Croatia in the second half of the WC semi. And then him just have a moment where he pops a daisy cutter into the corner to make it 2-0 whilst all around are trying to play keep ball. Kills the game before the fear sets in. But the reality is there's always one last opponent who is physically, technically, mentally and tactically better in those knock out situations. And just waits for us to get all our shit in first, spots the weakness and then does their thing.
Click to expand...

It is an accurate summing up, but that's simply down to quality. We don't have enough top players at this stage to avoid that situation. I don't really blame anyone for that, just a fact of (current) footballing life (for the last 50+ years...)
 
20togo said:
Agree. With regards to 3-5-2 , I think it's hard to find where Sterling fits into that system. As you say he is better out wide cutting in. With regards to the no 10 I do think either Grealish or Foden can play that role but is it their best position. Probably not. I think with those two you have to give them the licence to go where they want and the responsibility falls on other players to cover the gaps they leave should we be prone to counter attack. And of course there's Mount too. I did think Southgate gave a really good interview after the game with regards to those three with his comments regards physique and the giants of teams like France and Portugal.

I think it's hard to pick a best eleven. I think it does depend on the system we play and also who the opposition are. Certainly with regards to the forward thinking players. I think Kane and Sterling are a definite two and then you have Rashford, Grealish, Foden, Mount and SAncho competing for three places when you are up against the so called weaker teams, and then maybe just two of them if you are up against a top team that can hurt you and who are likely to have more of the ball than us. My own choice for three would be Grealish, Rashford and Foden and two Grealish and Foden. I don't think that would be Southgates choice though. I think as it stands he puts maybe Rashford and Mount above the others.
Click to expand...
We place too much emphasis on physique and I see Southgate mentions it too. For every France and Portugal though, there's a Spain, a team of midgets who murder teams on the deck.
 
I think James Ward Prowse is an interesting one. Not involved this time because of injury but one of the best dead ball specialists in the prem. Must be in with a shout alongside Rice or Henderson in the middle when everyone's fit. Slightly older at 26 but knocking on the door. Cover at right back as well if you were picking a euros squad.
 
20togo said:
mmmm.... do we want another long thread? 😉 There's just one point in there that I can understand. where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
Go on then. I've a few spare minutes. What do you agree with and what's wrong with everything else?
 
straightatthewall said:
For better or for worse, Southgate has placed a premium on continuity and players who have regularly made themselves available and not let him down. Nice piece on the BBC site regarding Pickford. He's getting a lot of stick for his Everton performances (and mistakes) but for England he hasn't made many (if any) big errors. So as his coach, why wouldn't Southgate stick with him? I guess the same applies to Dier, who i think most would not see as a starting CB for his club, let alone country (he's clearly better in midfield...) I don't think he'll start a real game, but you can see that Southgate likes what he brings to the squad as a whole.
Click to expand...
mmmm....i'd say Foden let him down in Iceland but maybe he's such an exceptional talent he got a bit of preferential treatment over maybe a player he was bit more unsure of. As for Dier, well he's currently the centre half in Mourinho's team and he alternates a bit between Sanchez and Aldereiweld as his partner. As some-one who likes Spurs I'd go Aldereiweld and then desperately look for another centre half.
 
To me England have so many exciting attacking players it does not make sense to play a defensive system such as two defensive midfielders and a back three. 4-3-3 with one defensive midfielder would appear the best way to go. We know we can control games for periods, unlike so many times in the past, so why not play to our strengths. With our defensive deficiencies attack may be the best form of defence.
 
Ruperthoop said:
To me England have so many exciting attacking players it does not make sense to play a defensive system such as two defensive midfielders and a back three. 4-3-3 with one defensive midfielder would appear the best way to go. We know we can control games for periods, unlike so many times in the past, so why not play to our strengths. With our defensive deficiencies attack may be the best form of defence.
Click to expand...

In that case, maybe we shouldn't play a keeper.
 
20togo said:
mmmm....i'd say Foden let him down in Iceland but maybe he's such an exceptional talent he got a bit of preferential treatment over maybe a player he was bit more unsure of. As for Dier, well he's currently the centre half in Mourinho's team and he alternates a bit between Sanchez and Aldereiweld as his partner. As some-one who likes Spurs I'd go Aldereiweld and then desperately look for another centre half.
Click to expand...

Foden's ability combined with England's obvious lack of his sort of skills mean he should already be a fixture in the squad. That he's still establishing himself suggests to me that Southgate wants to see everything about him. Not just his footballing skills. Same probably applied to Grealish, who appears to be showing more maturity on and off the pitch and is getting his rewards for that.
Of course, I'm totally guessing here. I don't really know what goes on. But i do know that Southgate has been quick to distance his England team from players where the attitude isn't right. The irony is that people will support that view or discredit it depending on which way the wind is blowing.

As for Dier, he's just not good enough at CB. End of story really. He's better as a defensive midfielder who sits in front as a shield, breaks up play, gives it short and maybe offers a presence on set-pieces. I don't see anything between him and Rice in that respect; on fact, I'd take Dier over Rice.
 
straightatthewall said:
In that case, maybe we shouldn't play a keeper.
Click to expand...
I suspect that might be taking things a shade further than Ruperhoop planned and may encourage the opposition to be shooting from even as far away as their own penalty area but it would certainly encourage more open attacking football from us and without a keeper we could play a very effective offside game if the opposition ever mistimed any runs over the halfway line. So definitely worth a try.
 
Wizaard said:
Going back to the pre match comments on this thread, I find it hard to relate to a team when I've no idea who some of the team are, and people get more frequent starts for England than they do for their clubs.

I'm all for fast tracking talent but that's ridiculous.

It goes to show just how much the game is run by and for the Premier League clubs. The national team is a sideshow.

Of course we want them to do well in tournaments but until the best players in the League are English it won't happen.
Click to expand...
Jeez, I set the bait and you bit. 😉

Right then. Your first para. If you watched a bit more PL football then you'd realise who these players are and be able to relate to them. AsI said earlier, I'm a football fan. I don't just restrict myself to BFC, I watch all football and I love the PL and the hugely talented players in there. I love the game of football itself. So yep, that helps me know about players and helps when I come to watch England. Too many imo want to put the game down but not for actual football reasons.

Your next point re "fast tracking talent". This was the point I did agree on to a certain extent. Way too many given an opportunity too soon. Obvious ones such as Hudson-Odoi, Loftus-Cheek, Kalvin Phillips and there will be more. I'd even put Sancho in the list too. Is there a case to be made that it could do some more harm than good. I think so.

The national team is not a side show. Many fans care about their national team and more importantly the players do too. Go and tell someone like Grealish who has been desperate to play for his country that playing for England is a side-show. Your comment is utter nonsense. You say it because you yourself only get an interest when we are either doing well or a major tournament comes around. I've been on this message board for years and certainly recall some of your posts and apathy towards the national team. Yeah of course, I wouldn't be able to find them but if you're honest with yourself you'll know what I've said is true. And yes, I know you've followed England abroad but more recently you've become far more apathetic to them.

Your last point. Well we got to the semi final at the last World Cup, we got to the Nations League finals which is basically a final for the elite of football. Remember we had to beat Spain in our group to get there, so yep that's success, it's a pretty decent achievement. I'd say it's doing well and we weren't hindered solely because the so called best players in the PL weren't/aren't English.

There you go, pick the bones out of that.😉
 
Ruperthoop said:
To me England have so many exciting attacking players it does not make sense to play a defensive system such as two defensive midfielders and a back three. 4-3-3 with one defensive midfielder would appear the best way to go. We know we can control games for periods, unlike so many times in the past, so why not play to our strengths. With our defensive deficiencies attack may be the best form of defence.
Click to expand...
Understand that but for me, that's a bit too simplistic. You've got to have more of the ball to constantly attack the best teams. And against the best teams I don't think it's a guarantee that we will. In fact, I'd go so far as to say teams like Spain, France, Germany and a fully focused Belgium are more likely to have more of the ball. Not forgetting the likes of a resurgent Italy too.
 
Sako has had 33 appearances for Arsenal including subs. In the same period, he's had 31 games for England at various levels. You presume I don't care about the Premier League or watch it. I watch MOTD and the occasional game live and I repeat, I'd never heard of him and I won't be the only one.

If you think the club v country debate is over, that's your prerogative and in some ways, it is. Club has won out and continues to do so. That's why the country won't win things. Getting close isn't the point. It's not success.
 
20togo said:
Your last point. Well we got to the semi final at the last World Cup, we got to the Nations League finals which is basically a final for the elite of football. Remember we had to beat Spain in our group to get there, so yep that's success, it's a pretty decent achievement. I'd say it's doing well and we weren't hindered solely because the so called best players in the PL weren't/aren't English.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of your points later down the post from our conversation.

But I think you’re not understanding the wider point with England and it’s fan base old and new.

If you just take this thread as a section for experiment of the wider fan base. There’s a lot of likes and supporting comments to what Wiz myself and others are saying. I’ve not counted and it’s not a dick swinging exercise but I think the comments and likes regarding loosing that connection and passion for England Football out weigh the ones in support.

That tells me something, I think if you look there’s a wider problem with England, the PL,it’s effects on the game domestically and internationally and the general public’s engagement with the national team.

It goes beyond us all just being fair weather fans.
 
straightatthewall said:
Foden's ability combined with England's obvious lack of his sort of skills mean he should already be a fixture in the squad. That he's still establishing himself suggests to me that Southgate wants to see everything about him. Not just his footballing skills. Same probably applied to Grealish, who appears to be showing more maturity on and off the pitch and is getting his rewards for that.
Of course, I'm totally guessing here. I don't really know what goes on. But i do know that Southgate has been quick to distance his England team from players where the attitude isn't right. The irony is that people will support that view or discredit it depending on which way the wind is blowing.

As for Dier, he's just not good enough at CB. End of story really. He's better as a defensive midfielder who sits in front as a shield, breaks up play, gives it short and maybe offers a presence on set-pieces. I don't see anything between him and Rice in that respect; on fact, I'd take Dier over Rice.
Click to expand...
Just to confirm I was saying that Dier isn't good enough, It's just that I thought you implied he wasn't playing there for Spurs. when the fact is at the moment he's first choice. And that will cost them.
 
Wizaard said:
Sako has had 33 appearances for Arsenal including subs. In the same period, he's had 31 games for England at various levels. You presume I don't care about the Premier League or watch it. I watch MOTD and the occasional game live and I repeat, I'd never heard of him and I won't be the only one.

If you think the club v country debate is over, that's your prerogative and in some ways, it is. Club has won out and continues to do so. That's why the country won't win things. Getting close isn't the point. It's not success.
Click to expand...
Yep, and as I said earlier we've only ever won one tournament. So really blaming the PL for that is a load of nonsense. There wasn't a PL prior to 1992. but we only won the one trophy in over 60 years.
 
Whenever I have seen Villa this season (only highlights I must admit) Grealish and Barkley have been causing all sorts of problems for the opposition. I know we have a lot of attacking options, but they don’t always create a lot.
Maybe Southgate is missing a trick in not pairing these two up at International level, at least for a short trial before the next big Competition?
 
20togo said:
Yep, and as I said earlier we've only ever won one tournament. So really blaming the PL for that is a load of nonsense. There wasn't a PL prior to 1992. but we only won the one trophy in over 60 years.
Click to expand...
It's always been club before country and that's got more obvious. And most teams have 2 or 3 regular English players. In 1992 there were 12 overseas players. There's a much reduced pool available to the manager because of the importation of overseas players.
 
Rektseasider said:
I agree with some of your points later down the post from our conversation.

But I think you’re not understanding the wider point with England and it’s fan base old and new.

If you just take this thread as a section for experiment of the wider fan base. There’s a lot of likes and supporting comments to what Wiz myself and others are saying. I’ve not counted and it’s not a dick swinging exercise but I think the comments and likes regarding loosing that connection and passion for England Football out weigh the ones in support.

That tells me something, I think if you look there’s a wider problem with England, the PL,it’s effects on the game domestically and internationally and the general public’s engagement with the national team.

It goes beyond us all just being fair weather fans.
Click to expand...
Look, I get all that. I fully recognise that people are switching off to England for various reasons. That's their choice of course. And I know this will come across as being blunt but a lot of these people still want to comment on England and stick the boot into them. Whether you agree with me or not I think that when I'm negative about England it's because it hurts to see them play badly, it hurts when we lose a match. Of course with regards to players we all have our own opinions on who we rate and who we don't, that's the beauty of football and we do it with BFC. But then there are others, who seem to get some enjoyment from being negative about our national team. Sorry but I just don't get that mindset from supposed football fans born in this country.
 
Wizaard said:
It's always been club before country and that's got more obvious. And most teams have 2 or 3 regular English players. In 1992 there were 12 overseas players. There's a much reduced pool available to the manager because of the importation of overseas players.
Click to expand...
So like I said, you really don't care about England do you?
Tell me, back in 1992 did all the PL clubs have academies like they do now? The pool is exactly the same. Anyone born in England who is good enough at football can be selected. All the talk now is about the amount of young talent coming thru. Guess what they are all English and have developed their skills in the Academies. Academes that weren't around in 1992 and are now the subject of massive investment.
 
20togo said:
Jeez, I set the bait and you bit. 😉

AsI said earlier, I'm a football fan. I don't just restrict myself to BFC, I watch all football and I love the PL and the hugely talented players in there. I love the game of football itself. So yep, that helps me know about players and helps when I come to watch England. Too many imo want to put the game down but not for actual football reasons. (1)



The national team is not a side show. Many fans care about their national team and more importantly the players do too. Go and tell someone like Grealish who has been desperate to play for his country that playing for England is a side-show. Your comment is utter nonsense. You say it because you yourself only get an interest when we are either doing well or a major tournament comes around. I've been on this message board for years and certainly recall some of your posts and apathy towards the national team. Yeah of course, I wouldn't be able to find them but if you're honest with yourself you'll know what I've said is true. And yes, I know you've followed England abroad but more recently you've become far more apathetic to them. (2)

Your last point. Well we got to the semi final at the last World Cup, we got to the Nations League finals which is basically a final for the elite of football. Remember we had to beat Spain in our group to get there, so yep that's success, it's a pretty decent achievement. I'd say it's doing well and we weren't hindered solely because the so called best players in the PL weren't/aren't English. (3)

There you go, pick the bones out of that.😉
Click to expand...

You make some interesting points - three of them in fact - which I think are indicative of differences of attitude. In order :

(1) I find it weird that you are so in thrall to the elite game when there is so much more to the sport - and so much that is wrong. It's the kind of mentality that I expect from people who watch the Harlem Globetrotters or professional wrestling and somehow convince themselves that they are a real reflection of the sport (the analogy isn't exact, I know that) . But we are all different, I suppose.

(2) Have you ever thought that it is YOU who is out of step here? Many of us look at the national team and see only over-privileged, under-performing players and feel little or no empathy with them. What we DO feel for them is a poor proxy for what we feel for our own club. I don't mind if you do care passionately about them, although I find it a bit strange. I do mind that - yet again - you won't brook any other attitude than your own.

(3) Can we have some perspective? It's an utterly contrived format created to give no-hopers a chance of qualifying for major tournaments they would otherwise never reach. That is not the situation that the likes of England and Spain are in, so let's not over-egg one-off wins in games that don't have any critical importance for us.
 
I`ve always felt that the PL is a double edged sword for our national team.

The fact that standards in the PL are very high means more is demanded for all who play in it which should help to raise standards of all who participate but as Wizaard says it is very much club before country with mainly foreign managers far more interested in avoiding international games for their big names and the influx of foreign players much reduces opportunities for home players which obviously holds back the development of the national team.

Just to add I can`t believe that any English supporter ever gets any enjoyment from seeing our national team underperform but simply expects more when we do underperform ,which we clearly have done over the last 50 years, and I`m not afraid to say so . I have welcomed English sporting successes in other sports such as our World Cup cricket win but football is our national game ,we`re the home of the game but continue to underachieve at that highest level which I take absolutely no pleasure from,quite the reverse and when that happens like others I try to identify the reasons for our failures but await with hope the day we finally reach the very top again which we certainly should do.
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem with England since the PL has been formed has been the choice of managers. It is easy to waste an entire decade by a couple of bad choices.
For instance both Sven and Capello set the team up as if they were trying to win the Italian League in the mid eighties. That was 10 years gone.
Generally good enough to not get sacked with the odd very good result, but never close to winning anything.
Some great players in that time, and by then capable of playing in flexible formations, that never achieved what they should have for England at least in some part due to the managers being out of date code.
 
20togo said:
Look, I get all that. I fully recognise that people are switching off to England for various reasons. That's their choice of course. And I know this will come across as being blunt but a lot of these people still want to comment on England and stick the boot into them. Whether you agree with me or not I think that when I'm negative about England it's because it hurts to see them play badly, it hurts when we lose a match. Of course with regards to players we all have our own opinions on who we rate and who we don't, that's the beauty of football and we do it with BFC. But then there are others, who seem to get some enjoyment from being negative about our national team. Sorry but I just don't get that mindset from supposed football fans born in this country.
Click to expand...
Aye but my point on your comments are, we’ve all been tarred with the same brush as fair weather fans, only love the tournaments etc etc.

My point is away from the doom and gloomers and WUMS, there’s now fundamental issues with England and the FA around fan engagement and involvement, I think the people that whine for the sake of it are a minority and the true sort of hard core fans of the past have well and truly become disillusioned and rightly so.
 
basilrobbie said:
You make some interesting points - three of them in fact - which I think are indicative of differences of attitude. In order :

(1) I find it weird that you are so in thrall to the elite game when there is so much more to the sport - and so much that is wrong. It's the kind of mentality that I expect from people who watch the Harlem Globetrotters or professional wrestling and somehow convince themselves that they are a real reflection of the sport (the analogy isn't exact, I know that) . But we are all different, I suppose.

(2) Have you ever thought that it is YOU who is out of step here? Many of us look at the national team and see only over-privileged, under-performing players and feel little or no empathy with them. What we DO feel for them is a poor proxy for what we feel for our own club. I don't mind if you do care passionately about them, although I find it a bit strange. I do mind that - yet again - you won't brook any other attitude than your own.

(3) Can we have some perspective? It's an utterly contrived format created to give no-hopers a chance of qualifying for major tournaments they would otherwise never reach. That is not the situation that the likes of England and Spain are in, so let's not over-egg one-off wins in games that don't have any critical importance for us.
Click to expand...
The Harlem globetrotters analogy is ridiculous as well you know.
What's wrong with wanting to watch the elite at any sport? Do you not do it with the NFL? How many college games have you watched ? They are available if you look you know. A lot of the characteristics of the premiership exist in the NFL plus a franchise system that we would never swallow in football here but you are in its thrall.it's the only thing you post on here that you get passionate about.
I think what's going on here is that you are in love with your club and the highs and days out that it brings. There's nothing wrong with that and your not on your own..But..Everything else has given you a huge chip on your shoulder.
I have a love for the game itself. It's what I grew up watching . I didn't just limit myself to my own club.
 
Last edited:
20togo said:
So like I said, you really don't care about England do you?
Tell me, back in 1992 did all the PL clubs have academies like they do now? The pool is exactly the same. Anyone born in England who is good enough at football can be selected. All the talk now is about the amount of young talent coming thru. Guess what they are all English and have developed their skills in the Academies. Academes that weren't around in 1992 and are now the subject of massive investment.
Click to expand...
Based on what? Theres nothing I've put anywhere that says I don't care. I care enough to be bothered that clubs put their emphasis totally on themselves and not the country and there's a paucity of opportunity for English players.

When wasn't there talk of talent coming through? The Golden Generation. That worked out well. The bottom line is that clubs are packed to the gunnels with foreign players, who qualify as home grown. Remember GTF wasn't counted but Cesc Fabregas was. Lunacy.
 
PNENIL said:
The Harlem globetrotters analogy is ridiculous as well you know.
What's wrong with wanting to watch the elite at any sport? Do you not do it with the NFL? How many college games have you watched ? They are available if you look you know. A lot of the characteristics of the premiership exist in the NFL plus a franchise system that we would never swallow in football here but you are in its thrall.it's the only thing you post on here that you get passionate about.
I think what's going on here is that you are in love with your club and the highs and days out that it brings. There's nothing wrong with that and your not on your own..But..Everything else has given you a huge chip on your shoulder.
I have a love for the game itself. It's what I grew up watching . I didn't just limit myself to my own club.
Click to expand...
Arguably the EPL isn't the elite. You've been brainwashed by the greatest league in the world guff.
 
basilrobbie said:
You make some interesting points - three of them in fact - which I think are indicative of differences of attitude. In order :

(1) I find it weird that you are so in thrall to the elite game when there is so much more to the sport - and so much that is wrong. It's the kind of mentality that I expect from people who watch the Harlem Globetrotters or professional wrestling and somehow convince themselves that they are a real reflection of the sport (the analogy isn't exact, I know that) . But we are all different, I suppose.

(2) Have you ever thought that it is YOU who is out of step here? Many of us look at the national team and see only over-privileged, under-performing players and feel little or no empathy with them. What we DO feel for them is a poor proxy for what we feel for our own club. I don't mind if you do care passionately about them, although I find it a bit strange. I do mind that - yet again - you won't brook any other attitude than your own.

(3) Can we have some perspective? It's an utterly contrived format created to give no-hopers a chance of qualifying for major tournaments they would otherwise never reach. That is not the situation that the likes of England and Spain are in, so let's not over-egg one-off wins in games that don't have any critical importance for us.
Click to expand...
Robbie
I've told you before that I don't conform to bog standard way of thinking. It's not about not wanting to conform, it's just the way I think. But I'm not a fool for doing that so if you think I am you greatly underestimate me at your peril.

Right, your point 3 first. I certainly haven't over egged one off performances. It was good performances where some players did their chances no harm of forcing their chances of getting into Southgates starting eleven. No it's not a contrived format at all for the so-called bigger teams. Maybe you have a point about the no-hopers but we are not a no hoper. We are one of the elite teams and it's a highly competitive competition which has a trophy at the end of it and is a much preferable scenario to what went before which were meaningless friendlies. Your dismissive contempt for it is clear thru which pretty much sums your narrow minded view when it comes to the EPL and the National team.

Right your first point. I find it a bit rich your comment of me being in thrall to the elite game. Yes, I love the elite game or the PL if you want to call it that. But there's much more to me than just that. I love my national team, I love Blackpool FC, sure I've probably not seen as many games as you but I'd be surprised if it wasn't over a 1000 games I've seen Blackpool play live. How many of them were elite games? Not that many. I want my team to be the best they can and that's by being a PL team. I suspect your ambition falls way short of that.
I've also spent fourteen years in wind, snow hail rain and sunshine on the local parks of the Fylde watching my youngest lad play. Both for the love of my lad and the love of football and the camaraderie that it's enriched my life with. You want to sit on an FSA committee, that's great, I hope you achieve what you want out of it, but it's not for me. I just want to enjoy the GAME of football. That stance will never change. Indeed I suspect you'll get more enjoyment out of your own ambitions for the FSA than you now ever will out of watching BFC. i've said it before you seldom comment on anything BFC related now! I think the passions gone from you Robbie, you just don't care to admit it.

Right your point two. Again, that's a blinkered view imo. You've got so many hang ups on the elite game that your focus is all about lower league club fans opinions. You're talking about just a few people on an internet message board. Recall the buzz around the nation at the last world cup and our progression to the semi finals. It gave the country a massive lift. So I may be out of sync with some at this point in time but come the Euros next year and hopefully a few good wins and performances and then I just wonder how out of sync my views are. It is a point I make earlier.

PNENIL's is a great post.
 
PNENIL said:
The Harlem globetrotters analogy is ridiculous as well you know.
What's wrong with wanting to watch the elite at any sport? Do you not do it with the NFL? How many college games have you watched ? They are available if you look you know. A lot of the characteristics of the premiership exist in the NFL plus a franchise system that we would never swallow in football here but you are in its thrall.it's the only thing you post on here that you get passionate about.
I think what's going on here is that you are in love with your club and the highs and days out that it brings. There's nothing wrong with that and your not on your own..But..Everything else has given you a huge chip on your shoulder.
I have a love for the game itself. It's what I grew up watching . I didn't just limit myself to my own club.
Click to expand...

I don't think the analogy is that much of a stretch, and I did say it was inexact. It's the slavish love of a form of football that has little to do with reality that I was driving at.

As for NFL. Yes, I post about it (occasionally), and I enjoy it. That doesn't mean I am blind to the fact that it wouldn't work culturally over here. But I do admire it as a genuine competition, with a structure that promotes parity, that also manages to raise many, many millions of dollars for good causes, every year. There, any similarity with the EPL ends. And I'm not posting on here to demand that everyone loves it in precisely the same manner that I do.

As for passionate posting on here about football ; been there, done that, had more T-shirts than many posters on AVFTT have had hot dinners. I find it highly amusing that people want to criticise me for not doing it this season when they were quick to rubbish me because I was doing it before. 😀

I'm not sure where this chip on my shoulder is. What exactly am I supposed to be feeling resentful about?
 
Wizaard said:
Based on what? Theres nothing I've put anywhere that says I don't care. I care enough to be bothered that clubs put their emphasis totally on themselves and not the country and there's a paucity of opportunity for English players.

When wasn't there talk of talent coming through? The Golden Generation. That worked out well. The bottom line is that clubs are packed to the gunnels with foreign players, who qualify as home grown. Remember GTF wasn't counted but Cesc Fabregas was. Lunacy.
Click to expand...
I see you fail to touch on my point about the Academies. The so called Golden Generation were a fair bit before what the Academies are today. But again with you, it's all about the negativity. Just like you were with McIlroy.
 
20togo said:
I see you fail to touch on my point about the Academies. The so called Golden Generation were a fair bit before what the Academies are today. But again with you, it's all about the negativity. Just like you were with McIlroy.
Click to expand...
I'm saying the academies haven't done anything yet, so very much a case of youthful promise potentially going nowhere because of lack of opportunities.
 
Wizaard said:
Not ridiculing. Saying there are better teams out there than anything we can muster. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Of course there are, who is saying there aren't. But we're ranked no 4. And once again it's the derogatory comment in the way you use muster.
All your comments are negative. You enjoy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top