Most disappointing generation of footballers (internationals)...

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
I think you are harsh on Italy too, given they were a penalty kick away from a very differs narrative.
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.
 

fps

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
5,478
This mentality is why England failed.
Very much so. The reminder of Mcmanaman as an England player brings home the point about lack of variety in that later “golden” team though you’d have thought the setup had a lot to do with it.
 

carvajal

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
11,053
Location
Spain
Supports
Real Madrid
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).
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.
And in 98 it was thought that this generation had to offer some outcome. As a climax, Madrid had just been champion of Europe so the people came excited with the world cup.
Now looking at it from a distance I think you are right.
They were not so good and there were players who did not develop as they should.
Kiko with many injuries, Alfonso with some magical random moments but not a great goalscorer after all.
Julen Guerrero, one of the most popular players when he was young and completely irrelevant from the age of 25.
Etxeberria who had been top scorer in a U20 World Cup. He did not progress as much as it was thought when he left Real Sociedad, or Celades, which at that time was the finest in the Masía.
To finish off Guardiola could not go and personally I never liked Hierro in the center. Very "imperial" as he was but constantly misplaced and surpassed.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
I think when talking about disappointments, it’s worth paying special credit to the Croatians. They are the complete opposite, and really made the most they could out of two generations of good talent - winning a bronze and silver medal within 20 years.

I don’t know what they have coming behind the likes of Modric, Perisic and Mandzukic - but I don’t expect them to fare as well going forward.
 

Dave Smith

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
2,506
Supports
Anything anti-Dipper
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.
Agree. The player that they need to kick on from youth football/fulfil his promise fully was Joe Cole. However, he ended up as a decent sort of squad player for a top team rather than a go to player. Without him being able to step up the England teams of the 00's were too predictable.
 

Untd55

Full Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,516
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.
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.
 

Josh 76

Full Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
5,565
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.
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.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
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.
That team seemed allergic to prosperity on the world cup stage.
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

thegregster

Harbinger of new information
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
13,446
Holland in the late 90s/early 2000.

Van Der Sar,Stam,De Boer×2,Seedorf,Davids,Overmars,Kluveirt,Bergkamp,MaKaay etc
 

Thiagoal

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,565
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.
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!
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
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.
To be fair Spain should have strolled the quarter final against England, with two goals wrongly chalked off.
 

Renegade

Full Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,393
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.
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.
 

Infordin

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2016
Messages
3,897
Supports
Barcelona
Argentina 2010 had the potential to line up like this at the World Cup:

Romero
Zabaleta - Mascherano - Samuel - Heinze
Zanetti - Cambiassio
Messi - Di Maria - Tevez
Aguero​

You could always replace Tevez with Lavezzi if you wanted a more defensive team.

Unfortunately they selected freaking Maradona as their manager.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
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.
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.

Ballack came to the prem old and injury prone and was often used in a deeper role than Lampard. Infact, his best form at Chelsea happened when Lampard was injured in the 07/08 season.

The prem clubs took advantage of the collapse of Italian football after the scandal and did well in the CL in that era. Let's also not forget that those club sides often have plenty foreign players.

Italy had Cannavaro who was maybe the best defender of the era. Also Materazi wasn't supposed to start, Nesta got injured in their opening game. Matterazi himself was a great CB as well. Those two had the best prem player in Henry under lock and key in the final in brutal fashion.

Galas had Thuram next to him and Vieira and Makalele in front of him. Even Bramble would look good with those players around him. Those teams could compensate when other players were lacking in certain areas.

Italy play not to concede and try to get something on the counter. A counter that's set up by Pirlo and his freak level passing from deep. The French system revolved around Zidanes amazing playmaking. The sort England has never had anything close to since Gascoigne.

Other players play certain roles and don't need to be all that good on the ball. England lacked a playmaker, i.e a technical marvel who can get the team heading in the right direction.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,815
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
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.
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.
 

AKDevil

Full Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
3,007
Location
London, England
Holland had some good teams from 1996 to 2006 prob. Good names. Should have won something but didn’t. Even 1994 team wasn’t bad.
 

jus2nang

New Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
172
Supports
Arsenal
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.
They won it just after that, funnily enough just after Drogba retired.

They lost 2 finals in the period you mentioned though.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
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.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,815
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
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.
If there were true then you would not see the fantastic performances Gerrard and Lampard put out in domestic and European competitions, I think it was simply a matter than both could not play together. This thus though point to a negative about them that they weren't tactically flexible enough to work in a system where bought could co-exist. This was also shown in 2010 when Capello realized he could not play Gerrard and Lampard centrally, so he brought in Barry to play and shifted Gerrard to the left/right wing, though this again pointed a weakness of Capello to not complete drop Gerrard and play a more natural winger in his place.

Germany were the same in 2012, it made tactical sense to play Kroos against Italy given the strength in the middle for Italy (and therefore the need to have more defensively sound players there) but that should've meant that Ozil should not have played, rather than being shifted to the right wing and therefore make him complete ineffective. Low was not able to make the brave decision to play a more natural right winger like Muller instead of the in-form Ozil and that ultimately backfired.

I even predicted the Kroos inclusion before the match: http://redandwhitedoublepivot.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-stop-pirlo-what-if-prandelli.html :D
 

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,444
It's fair to say after the 2006 World Cup everything went downhill for Italy. To this day, they haven't come close to having anything like that.

Although at the time, I knew Sweden had good players, it still was shocking to see them knocking Italy out of going to the World Cup.

Russia's failure to qualify for the 2010 World Cup was a huge disappointment. After that Euro 2008, you'd expect that generation to do even better. By 2012, most of them were finished at the top level.

Paraguay, when they had Gamarra, was always expected to do well at World Cups but no...
 

SAFMUTD

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11,787
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.
 

Number32

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
920
Netherland 2002-2004, their defense was pretty old with Stam and De Boer aging but they had worldclass midfielders and attackers on their prime to win trophies.

How could a team with Davids, Seedorf, Van Bomel, Cocu, Overmars, Kluivert, Van Nistelrooy, Makay, Hasslebaink had lose to Ireland and miss the world cup?
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
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.
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.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
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.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,815
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany
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.
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.
 

SAFMUTD

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11,787
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.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
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 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.
 

SAFMUTD

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11,787
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 agree, and with Henderson potentially being a top keeper england could solve their long problem there.

At the moment its all about potential for england, but right now France and Germany have better prospects IMO.
 

Gazza

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
32,644
Location
'tis a silly place
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.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
27,025
Location
...
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.
Drop Beckham for who though? England just wasn’t producing any Sancho’s and Grealish’s at the time. Joe Cole has his moment, and when it came, he was selected and was a regular in the team. But it wasn’t enough.

The profile of player England are producing now is very different. Back then all the ‘stars’ were big passing, big shooting, big running midfielders in the main. Today, only Henderson and Dier remain in that mould really. They were going to big tournaments and coming up against Gascoinges from elsewhere but they didn’t have their own. The introduction of Rooney in 2004 highlighted what something a little different could offer. But he wasn’t enough, and frankly, after 2004, he was never the same player in another tournament anyway.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
Danish side from mid-80’s, the original Danish Dynamite. Preben Elkjaer, young Michael Laudeup, Morten Olsen, Søren Lerby :drool:

Stupidly lost to Spain both in 1984 and 1986, while being considered at the very least one of the favorites in both tournaments. They had everything but were probably a bit too naive.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
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.
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.
 

SharpshooterTom

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
684
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.
 
Last edited:

Demyanenko_square_jaw

Full Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
1,045
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.
The majority of the established squad from the last few tournaments had become the first group of ussr players to move abroad over the last couple of seasons and were mostly struggling to adapt and in bad form, with a few also just clearly past their prime. It was really a last gasp of the 80s generation and not many of the next got much game time. They did have some bad luck too with the clearly outside the box penalty for the second goal against Romania which killed off that game and Maradona getting away without even a penalty after clearing a possibly goalbound effort away with his hand when the game was still 0-0. A draw or win there might have woken the team up.
 

RoyH1

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,886
Location
DKNY
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.
 

GuybrushThreepwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
1,159
Supports
Blackburn Rovers
I was young at the time, but did
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.
Agreed. The first World Cup I followed properly in real-time was France 98, and I've always thought that the Argentina teams either pre-Messi, or with a teenage Messi mostly sitting on the bench, were stronger and more balanced overall (at least on paper) than the later ones with a Messi in his prime / peak. I think that Argentina had a stronger talent pool in 1998, 2002 (despite their early exit), than they did in 2010, 2014 and 2018. Similarly the best Portugal team that I've seen in my lifetime was their Euro 2000 one, which didn't have Ronaldo in it.

Both Uruguay and Chile have won 2 Copa Americas since Argentina won their last one in 1993.

Colombia are surely the biggest underachievers in CONMEBOL given their relative resources. Their only Copa America title came on home soil in the much weakened 2001 tournament, and they have qualified for the World Cup last frequently than Paraguay. I know that they had a golden generation in the early 90s (the highlight probably being that 5-0 win away to Argentina in the 1994 WC qualifiers), though which struggled to do themselves justice at the World Cups and wasn't able to reach a Copa America final.
 

cyril C

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
2,634
I would say the most disappointed team is Holland. Holland had 3 golden generation, the Johan Cruyff generation, that had won nothing. The Van Basten generation managed to win the Euro 88 but nothing more. Then the 96-14 generation was the biggest flop.