Renegade
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,393
What? Prime Rooney was not enough but fecking Rashford is?
This mentality is why England failed.
What? Prime Rooney was not enough but fecking Rashford is?
Surely in terms of individuals, England say 2000 - 2006 would be a more frustrating 6 year period.England circa 96 - 2002
Spain circa 1998
Argentina circa 2014 - 2018
True but they were also a ball-hair away from going out in the group stage, second round against Nigeria and the quarter final where Spain were cheated. Baggio bails out Sacchi big time IMO. They had too much quality barely seeing any action, the likes of Vialli, Mancini and Signori kicking their heels on the bench around that era.I think you are harsh on Italy too, given they were a penalty kick away from a very differs narrative.
This mentality is why England failed.
I think much of the hype was domestic. In the 92 gold medal in the Olympics, in 94 out against Italy in a highly contested match, with the Tassotti incident at the end + a clamorous chance for Salinas, so we formed the idea that it was possible to advance further and even aspire to win.I don’t recall Spain being all that in 98’ tbh. Raul was quality, although still quite young (he scored a fantastic volley against Nigeria in that tournament), and Luis Enrique and Hierro were also quality. The likes of Exteberria was more hard work than quality I think, and Kiko and Alfonso were not all that either.
Paraguay are a notoriously difficult team to play against, their games are always low-scoring matches and they are set up like a Tony Pauli’s team. I may have forgotten some players, but I just don’t think Spain really had the quality in 98. 2002 was better with Raul still being in his prime but the Valencia boys also joined the party like Mendieta, Baraja and Joaquin (he might have still been at Beria then actually).
It is often discussed you are right. That said, I think England’s were all replicas of each other in the main. Centre halves, centre mids, centre forwards. The generation didn’t have one player who could break teams down at the highest level. I found the group a little on the ‘boring’ side - full of long-passing, long-shooting midfielders, but no real flair in midfield.
People will list England because people incorrectly overrate English players during the prem era due to the popularity of the prem. These guys have never been been better than players from other big nation's but their reputations are huge.
Not having this.People will list England because people incorrectly overrate English players during the prem era due to the popularity of the prem. These guys have never been been better than players from other big nation's but their reputations are huge.
That team seemed allergic to prosperity on the world cup stage.Surprisingly no shout for late 90s- early 00s Portugal - who I think had better talent than some of the Spain teams mentioned for example.
They produced a generation with Figo, Rui Costa, Paulo Sousa, Sergio Conceicao, Paolo Futre and Couto. It was always said of them that they didn’t have a striker - the best they had was Pauleta who was the star man for a PSG club that hadn’t actually been born yet. Nuno Gomes has a few moments too, but they never produced a striker to match the midfield talent they have. You could argue the same about their current generation, as Ronaldo has had to play out of position to answer his country’s call for a few years. They haven’t made a good centre forward since Eusebio.
Those players while great players were never the best players in the world and that regularly got exposed in the best big international competition.Not having this.
Terry.
Rio
Campbell.
Cole
Gerrard
Lampard
Scholes
Rooney
These players would have got into any top teams in Europe. Premier league clubs were getting into the semi and finals on a regular basis in the CL.
Holland in the late 90s/early 2000.
Van Der Sar,Stam,De Boer×2,Seedorf,Davids,Overmars,Kluveirt,Bergkamp,MaKaay etc
Was going to post something very similar! That Yugoslav team was literally packed full of world stars with flair, grit and just oozing class! Pedrag Mijatovic was my favourite player at the time! Such a shame for them that political upheaval cost them!One great generation that never was for reasons outside football was the Yugoslavia team of the 1990s. They were banned from Euro 92 due to internal conflict and their replacement Denmark won the tournament with a pretty pedestrian team bar Schmeichel and Brian Laudrup. Red Star Belgrade had won the European cup in 1991 with the backbone of the Yugolslav team: Savicevic, Prosinecki, Jugovic, Panchev, Mihajlovic. Add to this the likes of Boban, Boksic, Suker, Jarni, Mijatovic, Dragan Stoijkovic and probably more players I have forgotten and that's a seriously exciting generation we never got to see play together.
To be fair Spain should have strolled the quarter final against England, with two goals wrongly chalked off.England was the best team in Europe in 1996, there is no denying that. They completely battered Germany in the semi-final but could only score once; massive luck in favour of Germany that day. They should have been beaten Czech Republic in the final, also.
For some reason, people believe that English players cannot be better than those of other countries, which is stupid.
In the end, the team was disappointing.
That team seemed allergic to prosperity on the world cup stage.
Those players while great players were never the best players in the world and that regularly got exposed in the best big international competition.
Gerrard and Lampard weren't technically elite. Paul Scholes couldn't defend. Terry was slow for an elite center half, Rio was quality but lacked the aggresion that characterizes the very best defenders. Can't say much wrong about Cole, Campbell and Rooney.
International football in those days had a way to separate the best from the great and that regularly happened. The likes of Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard shouldn't be grouped with players like Gascoigne but pretty much regularly are.
Funny enough that's exactly what England did at the would cup in 06. They played Carrick or Hargreaves to be the foil for these stars and it still wasn't happening.That’s nonsense. Using the 2006 World Cup as reference. Gallas & Matterazi were the CB’s in the final. Are you suggesting they were a level superior to Rio and Terry? Vieira and Makelele were the CM’s for France with Guttuso and De Rossi for Italy. You can’t tell me these players were on a different level technically to the English midfielders you’ve mentioned. Granted that’s excluding Pirlo and Zidane. England’s issue was the hesitancy to use Hargreaves/Carrick to allow Gerrard Lampard to play. Germany finished 3rd that tournament with Ballack as their talisman. The same Ballack Lampard outshone regularly when playing in the same team. All 3 of those English midfielders won the UCL being key men in clubs in the space of 3 years.
People will list England because people incorrectly overrate English players during the prem era due to the popularity of the prem. These guys have never been been better than players from other big nation's but their reputations are huge.
They won it just after that, funnily enough just after Drogba retired.I was going to say the Ivory Coast side from 2006-2014. But I believe they won the AFCON during that. They never qualified from the group stages of the World Cup though but two of those groups were essentially group of deaths.
You have two players, who aren't all that great with the ball at their feet, being entrusted with the responsibility to go forward. That is an issue in and by itself. When the spaces get tight, their effectiveness is greatly reduced.I wouldn't say that English players were overrated individually, Gerrard and Lampard were close to equal to their peers in Europe who had more success on the international stage like Ballack, Pirlo etc.
What is overrated though is their contribution to their domestic teams, where we consider them to be the greatest players on the team an completely forget how other players brought balance to the squad and allowed them to play at their best.
This is particularly true for Lampard and Gerrard. Yes both were great players but they were also great because Lampard had Makalele, Essien and Ballack at different times move themselves about to allow him more freedom to play as an attacking midfielder. Similarly, Gerrards true peak did not come until Masherano came and played alongside Alonso, again to allow Gerrard freedom to attack and not worry about defending or deep playmaking.
This was where England all went wrong, the idea that Gerrard and Lampard could play together was flawed. That was because for that to work you would need one to sacrifice and play deeper. Neither had the ability to play that way and so you had a muddled system where neither were able to shine.
Playing Hargreaves in 06 was a wise decision because he brought defensive steel which again neither Gerrard or Lampard could, what was left was a playmaker who could take the responsibility to spread passes and let Lampard/Gerrard go forward, that was obviously Carrick. Sadly no English manager was brave enough to make the decision to drop either Lampard or Gerrard so you had continued failure.
You have two players, who aren't all that great with the ball at their feet, being entrusted with the responsibility to go forward. That is an issue in and by itself. When the spaces get tight, their effectiveness is greatly reduced.
England 2006-2010
World class talent in Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, etc
I personally think the england team is mentally weak and that’s one of the problems why they keep failing even though the talent is there.
The 442 was always doomed for that reason, but a 433 with both ahead of a natural holder should have worked well. A prime Mourinho tried to pair them to do just that, while it was closer to the club systems in which they shone.I wouldn't say that English players were overrated individually, Gerrard and Lampard were close to equal to their peers in Europe who had more success on the international stage like Ballack, Pirlo etc.
What is overrated though is their contribution to their domestic teams, where we consider them to be the greatest players on the team an completely forget how other players brought balance to the squad and allowed them to play at their best.
This is particularly true for Lampard and Gerrard. Yes both were great players but they were also great because Lampard had Makalele, Essien and Ballack at different times move themselves about to allow him more freedom to play as an attacking midfielder. Similarly, Gerrards true peak did not come until Masherano came and played alongside Alonso, again to allow Gerrard freedom to attack and not worry about defending or deep playmaking.
This was where England all went wrong, the idea that Gerrard and Lampard could play together was flawed. That was because for that to work you would need one to sacrifice and play deeper. Neither had the ability to play that way and so you had a muddled system where neither were able to shine.
Playing Hargreaves in 06 was a wise decision because he brought defensive steel which again neither Gerrard or Lampard could, what was left was a playmaker who could take the responsibility to spread passes and let Lampard/Gerrard go forward, that was obviously Carrick. Sadly no English manager was brave enough to make the decision to drop either Lampard or Gerrard so you had continued failure.
The 442 was always doomed for that reason, but a 433 with both ahead of a natural holder should have worked well. A prime Mourinho tried to pair them to do just that, while it was closer to the club systems in which they shone.
But ultimately England were undone by an oversupply of long game CMs and a lack of the types of players who kept the ball well in tight spaces.
I think the current generation has greater potential tbh. The famous generation were too similar for me, were missing a Sancho or Rashford.
The 96’ team had better balance with McManaman and Gascoigne in the midfield.
I think Kane’s leadership has helped the current generation to get better results than expected but talent wise I don’t see how this generation can win major titles.
You have world class players in Kane, Sterling and TAA and a lot of potential in players like Rashford, Sancho, Maddison, Grealish, Winks, etc
But overall I think the 2006 generation was better talent wise, this England generation while having a supper attack, lacks talent in midfield and defense to be considerated one of the favorites.
I agree, and with Henderson potentially being a top keeper england could solve their long problem there.I think with the defence, Maguire, Trent and even Wan-Bissaka are verging on the very top class.
I accept that there are more questions in the midfield, but for me, that is offset by a better frontline than the previous gen. There is also great potential in the midfield, although it is largely just potential right now. The established midfielders like Henderson, Dier and Alli are not all that at all. But then they probably have the best front-line in Europe.
I always felt a big problem for England was that David Beckham achieved indispensable status under Sven just before he actually lost most of what made him effective as a player. 2002 should have been the time England started to move away from Beckham (the same time Fergie started to consider him replaceable) and toward a new shape. That would have enabled experimentation with a 4-3-3 or variant thereof. People will say Beckham was still productive and set up/scored goals in tournaments, but they were mostly from set-pieces and otherwise he didn’t contribute to England playing better as a team overall. Don’t forget he wasn’t chasing up and down the wing at this point but more likely to lurch into central midfield and become another cook in the kitchen. If Eriksson had dropped Becks he would have been a target for the media and the Beckham PR machine, and the FA would probably not have approved, but people would have eventually moved on if it led to England playing a more effective style and making better use of Gerrard/Lampard/Carrick/Hargreaves/even Scholes. Beckham was more of a problem than the Gerrard/Lampard dilemma.
Aye well from memory they started with 4-4-2 with Rooney and Owen up top ahead of a flat four of Cole, Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham. After Owen’s injury it was a 4-1-4-1 with Rooney ploughing a lonely furrow with Carrick or Hargreaves shoring up midfield. The bigger problem was neither Beckham or Cole were wide forwards to support Rooney so he was isolated and hopelessly out of shape following his own toe break. The attack was broken which was why the team looked so laboured going forward despite possessing a lot of great individuals on paper.England played 433 in the world cup with Gerrard, Lampard and Hargreaves in midfield, Capello then went 442 in 2010. The reason I think Lampard-Gerrard failed, whether in a 433 or 442 was simply because one wouldn't sacrifice for the other. That could be they didn't want to or didn't have the ability to play a different role.
Ballack sacrificed his attacking qualities to play deeper for Chelsea, and did so successfully. Though they only won one league title they were still pretty good from 2006-2010, the problem was just that we were even better during that time.
What would have been the ussr generation of the '90s (and including some of the younger members of the '80s generation that got to the '88 Euro final like Kuznetsov, Mikhailichenko, Lytovchenko, Protasov etc that would have most likey had quite a lot longer primes covering first half of the 90s were it not for the breakup) has to be very high as far as the actual disappointment side of things goes. A lot of teams mentioned at least still had a good tournament or two, or had numerous players that got the most out of their talent at club level.
This on the other hand was a talented looking emerging generation circa 88-91 that ended up just a complete clusterfeck/perfect storm of the country falling apart and most of that talent largely wasted with a lot of failures to fully adapt and stay motivated inthe significantly different realities of life in a western professional league.
I just watched Soviet Union's first two games of the 1990 World Cup, not sure what happened to them in that WC but they looked utterly shit, even losing to that awful Argentina side. I think they were the first team elinimated.
Argentina in the late 90's to mid 00's. Absolutely loaded with defenders like Ayala, Samuel; fullbacks like Zanetti and Sorin; the likes of Simeone, Almeyda and verón in midfield and up front the likes of Batistuta, Crespo and Claudio López. Additionaly the skills of Ortega, Aimar. Never won a big championship.
Messi must look at those squads and weep in frustration.