Beforehand, yeah, I'd have taken Sweden in a heartbeat. After actually seeing this German side, I'd have still been confident about England's ability to beat them. Just being Germany doesn't make them amazing, and in fact, they were actually a bit shit. We've seen with many an England side that the best players don't necessarily make you a better team.
The "England have had it easy" narrative
- Thread starter Alex99
- Start date
Fair enough – if that and only that is the narrative, then it's questionable and easy to dismiss (as you've done above).
However, the “everybody's there on merit” and the “names and reputations mean nothing” is a narrative in itself. Leicester won the most prestigious (according to some) league title in Europe. End of story, right? Not quite right as we all know. They had it easy and the likelihood of a repeat is very slender.
Anyway, if what people mainly claim is that England's route was exceptionally easy compared to X, Y and Z (factoring in FIFA rankings and whatnot), then yes – you're right: they're wrong.
My impression is that what people actually did claim was that England were a bit mediocre, all things considered, and were relatively lucky with who they came up against (Rodriguez missing, Sweden). People also said that England looked shaky when Colombia started playing at a higher level – and that they would get “found out” against an opponent capable of turning up the heat for extended periods. This is arguably exactly what happened.
I understand your point and yea Germany didn’t look that great at the start but we’ve seen teams start slow in the past then kick off in the knockouts, the majority of that Germany team are worldcup winners, I’d be very surprised if England could have got past those. We’ll never know.
This is exactly what happened.
How the feck did this thread get to 29 pages?
Engerland had an amazingly easy draw throughout the WC. Probably the easiest one could ever hope for/imagine. They didn't play very well and were incredibly lucky to get to a semi-final.
What more is there to be said on this matter?
Engerland had an amazingly easy draw throughout the WC. Probably the easiest one could ever hope for/imagine. They didn't play very well and were incredibly lucky to get to a semi-final.
What more is there to be said on this matter?
Played 3 decent teams lost to 2 and beat 1 without their star player.
Wouldn’t have mattered a feck if they won it though.
Wouldn’t have mattered a feck if they won it though.
Anyone follow this on reddit throughout the World Cup? It charts participating nations’ rankings depending on who they beat, lose to etc. England could actually end up with a worse ranking after the tournament than they had before it despite reaching the semi-finals such were the non-entities they faced en route and lack of a win against a strong nation. 
Elo rating progression since the start of the 2018 WC for participating teams [OC] https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8yjmjg/elo_rating_progression_since_the_start_of_the/
Elo rating progression since the start of the 2018 WC for participating teams [OC] https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8yjmjg/elo_rating_progression_since_the_start_of_the/
Last edited:
Quite interesting to be fair. Is it official that FIFA is moving to elo ranking? Would be great if it happens, nowhere near a perfect system but better than how it is now.Anyone follow this on reddit throughout the World Cup? It charts participating nations’ rankings depending on who they beat, lose to etc. England could actually end up with a worse ranking after the tournament than they had before it despite reaching the semi-finals such was the non-entities they faced en route and lack of a win against a strong nation.
Elo rating progression since the start of the 2018 WC for participating teams [OC] https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8yjmjg/elo_rating_progression_since_the_start_of_the/
I saw on another forum someone using the elo rankings to prove that England's run was as hard as countless other runs for major nations at other World Cups. Couldn't understand their formatting though.
If FIFA had used the ranking system they are switching to in the run up to this World Cup then England would have been ranked higher and in pot one. Same thing happened at the 2014 World Cup. England take a lot of prestige friendlies that cost their ranking, whilst other nations take easy friendlies or duck them altogether to game the ranking system to get more favourable tournament draws.
Switzerland and Poland are the worst culprits for gaming the system in that way. If I remember correctly, the current system scores games by result using whatever system they use to decide the relative strength of teams, but friendlies always score lower than competitive fixtures. You can game the system by not playing friendlies because even though they're worth the less, it still counts as one game towards the averaging. This is how Poland ended up in Pot 1 and how Switzerland ended up ranked 6th going into the tournament.
2014 World Cup:
Brazil played Chile and Colombia to get to the semis.
Netherlands played Mexico and Costa Rica.
Brazil played Chile and Colombia to get to the semis.
Netherlands played Mexico and Costa Rica.
Wales too. I think they went 16 months without a friendly once and slid into the FIFA top 10!
I mentioned those two, Switzerland in particular, because it seems they end up in and around the top 10 for every major tournament. Weren't Wales ahead of England sometime before Euro 2016?
It was a favourable run; not an easy one evidenced by the fact we got outplayed by Croatia in the semis.
England are a well-organised, well-drilled, good international team. Nothing more; nothing less.
England are a well-organised, well-drilled, good international team. Nothing more; nothing less.
Chile are better than Colombia, especially a James-less Colombia.
It amuses me greatly that people still count the first Belgium game and also bang on about Colombia missing their best player like he's a prime Messi
Sure the run was easier than most, and sure no doubt Belgium will win the play off game, but if you are going to at least pretend to try to be reasonable about England let's not be stupid about it. People keep bitching about being called bitter and all that, but there's a lot of clear bias going on that's for sure from both sides.
Sure the run was easier than most, and sure no doubt Belgium will win the play off game, but if you are going to at least pretend to try to be reasonable about England let's not be stupid about it. People keep bitching about being called bitter and all that, but there's a lot of clear bias going on that's for sure from both sides.
Massively favourable run to the semi's, there's no denying it. Still it was a good competition and England have shown signs of progress in the overall way they played. 8/10.
When England have gone out of big tournaments in the past its usually been followed up by months of moaning. Going out to pens, player sent off because of a muppet(Beckham) or because he got stitched up(wink) or just a shit show of a performance(2014). "Its a cruel way to go out." theyd say.
However, this England team were beaten fair and square. No daft Refereeing, no piss poor antics from players or opposition just a straight up game where they got beat. Theres usually blame being assigned by this point. A lengthy finger pointing at some poor bastard who takes the full weight of the failure.
Not this time though. This time, it was all positive. Sure, it wasnt the best England team ever, but it was a far cry from the over paid dummies that limped out with 1 point four years ago. Ive given my English friends some stick about inflated expectations, but in the context of now vs four years ago, or the defeat by iceland, its hard to ignore why all the positivity is happening. Yes, it wasnt the hardest route to the semis. No big nations stood in the way with their mighty talisman or unified team of unbeaten warriors, but that shouldnt take away from the fact England got there. And whats more, they can leave with their heads held high that theres been genuine progress made in the national team. There still issues, but on a whole thats a team and not a group of individuals trying to steal headlines. Theres no division behind the scenes corroding performances. Theres no idiot getting sent off being a twat, which I think we can all admit we thought would be Delli. But no, even he pulled his head in and at least appeared to be controlling his usual nonsense.
So yes, it was an easy route. But to focus on that would be to miss the point of whats actually getting people excited. Football might not be coming home, but at least a national team you can be proud of is.
However, this England team were beaten fair and square. No daft Refereeing, no piss poor antics from players or opposition just a straight up game where they got beat. Theres usually blame being assigned by this point. A lengthy finger pointing at some poor bastard who takes the full weight of the failure.
Not this time though. This time, it was all positive. Sure, it wasnt the best England team ever, but it was a far cry from the over paid dummies that limped out with 1 point four years ago. Ive given my English friends some stick about inflated expectations, but in the context of now vs four years ago, or the defeat by iceland, its hard to ignore why all the positivity is happening. Yes, it wasnt the hardest route to the semis. No big nations stood in the way with their mighty talisman or unified team of unbeaten warriors, but that shouldnt take away from the fact England got there. And whats more, they can leave with their heads held high that theres been genuine progress made in the national team. There still issues, but on a whole thats a team and not a group of individuals trying to steal headlines. Theres no division behind the scenes corroding performances. Theres no idiot getting sent off being a twat, which I think we can all admit we thought would be Delli. But no, even he pulled his head in and at least appeared to be controlling his usual nonsense.
So yes, it was an easy route. But to focus on that would be to miss the point of whats actually getting people excited. Football might not be coming home, but at least a national team you can be proud of is.
And omitting they hammered the current World Champions Spain in the process too.
As Rafa once said, it’s a ‘facht’ that England had it easy and then got beaten when they faced a decent side. Then again they start Henderson soooo.....
Beaten easily by a better team.
England against any decent team loses.
They had an easy run that much is absolutely true.
England against any decent team loses.
They had an easy run that much is absolutely true.
The same Costa Rica that kicked out Engeland huh ??
England’s draw was kind, but kind runs often happen at World Cup. There’s usually a semi-finalist who’s not had to beat a top side to get there. Colombia were 10th though on Elo, but England only drew with them.
My point is everyones saying that England didn't have to face any "top teams" to reach the semis. As if its something new. Costa Rica weren't a top team.
Today was always going to be hard to rouse any sort of heart for, let alone against a team who could very easily claim to have the best team there!
Can't be many teams who have lost 3 games at one world cup though! Outside of group whipping boys.
Can't be many teams who have lost 3 games at one world cup though! Outside of group whipping boys.
England are very average. It's such a shame really. Belgium with their tiny population produce better players than us. It's the beer innit? Surely?
12 years ago you had the best squad in the tournie and Belgium had... Eh... Um...? Cycles and all that.
Germany and France are the only 2 nations who seem to be able to consistently pump out quality squads, and even then Germany had to go through a massive revamp in the early noughties to do that.
If you divide all 32 teams into 4 quartiles based on best to worst:
Panama - worst team in tournament
Tunisia - 4th quartile team
Belgium - Top team. Beat England twice.
Sweden - 2nd quartile team. Better than average.
Croatia - 1st quartile team.
I really don’t see this English team beating any of France, Belgium, Croatia, Brasil, Uruguay, Portugal or even Spain.
They might or might not be able to beat Rusia (in Rusia) and Mexico, and Switzerland.
Win vs Panama, Tunisia, Columbia (via pens) & Sweden. Lost against the 2 good teams they played. Twice vs Belgium.
Come back as legends to the English media. This is why people get frustrated.
Come back as legends to the English media. This is why people get frustrated.
It was an easy route with piss poor teams but England were one of those piss poor teams so technically it wasn't an easy route for them.
Surprised to see this from you. Surely you're aware enough to know media coverage of other nations in the world is likely to be just as embarrassing if not much worse than England. In fact we're more restrained here. You only have to watch videos on youtube of Italian, Portuguese commentary for some of their goals scored in these competitions to see how ridiculous they are. Like Neville and Keane said, Modric was talking shit, why would that even be on your mind?
I don't see what the media were doing as writing off Croatia, they were basically doing what any nation would do in that situation and try and look for positives and advantages. You think the Croatian media weren't thinking the same about England? All the teams on our side of the draw were thinking the exact same thing and their media coverage would have pointed it out just as much. It's the World Cup, everyone, every nation loses their mind in a pool of positivity and optimism.
Then why did we qualify and they not? Why the didn’t defeat us on qualifiers?
James is nowhere as good as Messi, but Colombia certainly is a better team whit him. His deadly passes and long range shots completely transform our attack’s. I think with James we will have defeated you and maybe even Croatia... But Belgium and France would have beaten us.It amuses me greatly that people still count the first Belgium game and also bang on about Colombia missing their best player like he's a prime Messi
Sure the run was easier than most, and sure no doubt Belgium will win the play off game, but if you are going to at least pretend to try to be reasonable about England let's not be stupid about it. People keep bitching about being called bitter and all that, but there's a lot of clear bias going on that's for sure from both sides.
It’s ColOmbia not Columbia!!!!!! FFS!!!!
I'd say Chile have more quality players, and they are the reigning Copa America champions. I mean Argentina almost didn't qualify as well but they are definitely a stronger team than Colombia as well.
Why didn't the stronger teams perform strongly?
Chile in 2014 vs Colombia now.
Overall in the qualifier Chile was mostly in qualified zone, they dropped out in last round where a draw would be enough for them. Overall they performed/ attacked better than Argentina and Columbia. Their defense was bad, and the attack couldn't always bail the out. The final standing is the final judge, but in this specific case, you may consider to say if they had time to stabilize their defense. With their attack, they should perform better than half of the other South America teams this World Cup.
The point worth being made is that despite getting the easiest possible route to the semi finals, England crumbled the very first time they encountered some resistance.
Croatia were not bad but not great either. But as soon as they equalised, Englands 'ball-playing' defenders lost their plot and began hoofing it. The midfield became non-existent and Henderson was the only person who could be spotted in that area of the pitch. One of the most potent goal scorers in Europe decided to become the playmaker trying to feed in out-of-form Rashford and Sterling.
The only real difference between this England and the teams from past tournaments is that this time they played average football with mostly average players. In previous occasions England have played the same dross football but with actually better individual footballers.
The only revolutionary thing Southgate did was to abolish the old 4-4-2. This alone is a big step forward for the English team. In terms of the quality of football, drive to win and even functioning as a proper team he didn't do anything special.
Croatia were not bad but not great either. But as soon as they equalised, Englands 'ball-playing' defenders lost their plot and began hoofing it. The midfield became non-existent and Henderson was the only person who could be spotted in that area of the pitch. One of the most potent goal scorers in Europe decided to become the playmaker trying to feed in out-of-form Rashford and Sterling.
The only real difference between this England and the teams from past tournaments is that this time they played average football with mostly average players. In previous occasions England have played the same dross football but with actually better individual footballers.
The only revolutionary thing Southgate did was to abolish the old 4-4-2. This alone is a big step forward for the English team. In terms of the quality of football, drive to win and even functioning as a proper team he didn't do anything special.
But you enjoyed the funny videos though?
And the tongue-in-cheek optimism as well