Did the Golden Generation really fail?

[Gio]

We would have won the World Cup 2002 with Gary Neville and Gerrard

Brazil - even with 10 men - were miles better than England in 2002.

 

[CurryCantona]

'Golden generations' exist only in countries which haven't won anything in a long time. Did the english golden generation fail? Most definitely.

 

[Gio]

Agree about the pace but with passers like Becks, Scholes and Gerrard in midfield as well as a technically strong defender like Rio, I wouldn't say possession was a major problem.

The problem with that team was that while Beckham, Gerrard and Lampard were great long passers/crossers/shooters, they weren't exceptional at the short possession game so important in international football. So when they all played together there was an aggregated weakness which they never really overcame. Scholes does have those qualities but never played a central role after 2000 and in fairness like all gingers struggled in the searing heat and humidity of the midsummer tournament.

 

[Stack]

England was definitely one of the best teams in Europe in 2002-2004, other than France I would say we were better than everybody else, Italy were arguably better but I still would have fancied our chances against them.

You are in fairy land.

 

[Riyami UTD]

Name me a better team then.

I think you mistook best collection of players for best team.
Gerrad, Lampard and Beckham were great players but they werent compatible.

 

[Nanook]

I think you mistook best collection of players for best team.
Gerrad, Lampard and Beckham were great players but they werent compatible.

No I didn't, England between 2002 and 2004 was one of the best teams in Europe, I'd say France were better than us, maybe Italy but other than that? Who?

 

[Riyami UTD]

No I didn't, England between 2002 and 2004 was one of the best teams in Europe, I'd say France were better than us, maybe Italy but other than that? Who?

I dont remember then being one of the best teams. I only remember them having the best players.

Brazil
France
Portugal

 

[Nanook]

I dont remember then being one of the best teams. I only remember them having the best players.

Brazil
France
Portugal

Brazil is in Europe? Ok, I've said right from the start that France were better than us back then so I don't know why you're naming them and Portugal were not better than us between 2002-2004 in my opinion anyway, they didn't qualify out of their pretty easy group in 2002 and we're very lucky against us in 2004 with home advantage.

 

[Riyami UTD]

Brazil is in Europe? Ok, I've said right from the start that France were better than us back then so I don't know why you're naming them and Portugal were not better than us between 2002-2004 in my opinion anyway, they didn't qualify out of their pretty easy group in 2002 and we're very lucky against us in 2004 with home advantage.

They were definitely better in 2004. Holland too IMO.
In the end youre only better if the performances back it up.

 

[Nanook]

They were definitely better in 2004. Holland too IMO.
In the end youre only better if the performances back it up.

Holland only finished on 4 points in their group in 2004,Czech republic won the group with 9 points. In the quarters they won on pens against Sweden after a 0-0 and then got beat by Portugal in the semis, the only game they won in normal time in the whole tournament was 3-0 against Latvia, Holland were not that great in 2004. Home advantage helped Portugal too, I'd still say England were better than both in that period.

If it wasn't for a missed pen by Beckham and then two 90th minute goals by Zidane, England would have beat France and almost certainly finished top of the group, even against Portugal we had what I think was a fair 90th minute winner disallowed, I don't buy the whole England are just unlucky argument but in that particular tournament I think we were.

 

[red_hatz]

in other words, bring back sven?

 

[Zen]

Brutally bad luck at the peak 02-06.....followed by throwing away the amazingly easy run they were handed in 2010 for a swansong. But no top 4 finish at all, even with the injuries is a fail, they WERE a top 4 team going into all 3 WC's, and Euro 2004. The 2008 fail was just insanity, brutal.

Shitty manager appointments killed it really, theres no way a decent manager wouldn't have tried to either utilize a back 3 given the fact you had 3 of the best in the world, or a midfield 3 of Scholes/Gerrard/Lampard or rotating them around with Hargreaves/Carrick sitting.

 

[JonDahl]

Our problem has always been looking at how our players performed by themselves, instead of what allowed them to play to play the way they did.

How anyone can sit down and say players like Gerrard and Lampard were overrated, when we were jumping for joy when these players would miss a game in their respective teams title challenging seasons, is ridiculous.

We've always tried to shoehorn our best players into the team at once. Lampard, playing in a 4-4-2 for Chelsea/West Ham, never broke 10 goals a season. The Russian money came along and with additions of players like Makelele, Geremi, Smertin and Parker and the experementation of formation (went more towards a diamond before Mourinho took over and played 4-3-3) he started hitting 15+ a season. Is it down to him growing as a player? I think such a big jump in performance is from the added responsibilty to get forward and be a goal threat.

We never replicated that with England. Playing Gerrard beside him never replicated that platform. Gerrard himself had one of his best seasons playing on the wing and behind the striker. Again never replicated at international level (mainly down to us having Beckham and Rooney). Rooney, who's best season (my opinion) was in 09/10 upfront on his own, wasn't replicated.

This was our problem. Our 'spine' was always good enough. Our wide positions were always good enough. In terms of individual talent. As a team though, we could not play everyone at the same time. Someone had to get dropped. No one did.

In the end it's been our downfall. Having the balls to drop big players.

Gutless against Brazil vs 10 men in 2002.
Bottled it twice on pens vs Portugal in 2004 and 2006.
Horrible management in 2008 (Mclaren).
Horrible management in 2010 (Capello).

All the deciding games in those tournaments (qualifying) were winnable. Instead, we scrapped through to those positions and got found out. The new campaign was always meant to be a 'change' but we just stuck with the same formula. We never evolved, we never tried to implement the growing importance of possession, we just stuck to our old ways and bludgeoned through the likes of Andorra and Macedonia.

The golden generation certainly failed, but it almost certainly wasn't down to a lack of talent or key players missing in key areas or players being overrated. It's down to shoddy management or lack of bottle in key moments.

 

[Gio]

No I didn't, England between 2002 and 2004 was one of the best teams in Europe, I'd say France were better than us, maybe Italy but other than that? Who?

I think you've got a point in as much as that was a period of transition in Europe with the heavyweights of the late 1990s - Holland, Italy, France - rebuilding. Throw in a weak Germany and Euro 2004 was an opportunity for England. Frankly it was Czech Republic who looked a cut above the rest in Portugal.

 

[Plugsy]

They were quite unlucky. In 2002 they ran up against eventual winners Brazil, in 2004 penalties, ditto 2006. If we discount the ineptitude of McClaren the only time the 'golden generation' really under-performed was in 2010 but it was largely on its way out if not completely finished by then anyway.

I'm not saying they were world beaters but we there was a cigarette paper between the 'failed golden generation' making two consecutive international tournament semi-finals, which would been good by most standards. Even the quarter finals during that period were better, as a matter of consistently, than England had done in donkeys years.

So under-achieved? Of course. If a team is capable of getting to the semi finals and even by virtue of a penalty shootout they don't make it - that's an under achievemet. But failure? No.

 

[moses]

To be fair. It was a great team compared to what you have now, at least on paper

Still not Golden, morelike above average.

 

[Nanook]

I think you've got a point in as much as that was a period of transition in Europe with the heavyweights of the late 1990s - Holland, Italy, France - rebuilding. Throw in a weak Germany and Euro 2004 was an opportunity for England. Frankly it was Czech Republic who looked a cut above the rest in Portugal.

Yeah that's a fair point, at the peak of England's golden generation in the early/mid 2000's it's certainly true that the other teams in Europe weren't as strong as they normally are but isn't it always the case that at least 3/4 of the 7 historically strong European teams are in some stage of rebuilding?

 

[Daslogisch]

Jamie Carragher was at worst a very good player, you don't play over 700 times for Liverpool by being average, at centre back he was never as good as Terry, Rio or Campbell but he was a very good centre back none the less. Hargreaves was much better than you give him credit for and while you're right about Cole at his peak he was still a very good player.

Owen would have never got transferred to Madrid if it wasn't for the Argentina goal? That's nonsense, he'd scored 158 goals for Liverpool before he was 26, his international record is 40 goals in 89 games, that's nearly a goal every 2 games scoring ratio, if it wasn't for his injuries he would almost certainly be England's top scorer ever. It was't just that Argentina goal either, he scored against Brazil in the quarter final in 2002, against Portugal in the quarter final of Euro 2004 and a hatrick away against Germany in 2001.

England was definitely one of the best teams in Europe in 2002-2004, other than France I would say we were better than everybody else, Italy were arguably better but I still would have fancied our chances against them.

I don't agree about Carragher. Never rated him highly and always thought he was a liability. There are reasons why Liverpool hasn't competed for a PL title for a long time and players like Carragher playing 700 games is one of those reasons. Hargreaves has barely had an impact in the English NT has he? At first in his Bayern days he was kind of overlooked I think? Once he did make his entrance into the NT he moved to Man Utd quite soon afterwards but he was injured a lot. At least that's my memory. He was good on his peak, but at first he was overlooked by the NT because he didn't play in England probably and then he became injury-prone.

Owen's goal against Argentina gave him the status he had. Although I would agree with you than injuries also had a negative effect on his carreer I feel like he never reached the potential that people thought he would reach. In 98 he was considered on the the brightest young strikers on the planet and that goal against Argentina basicly confirmed that. After that he never really confirmed that anymore. Of course he had some good years after that, but he never turned into a topclass striker.

I don't agree with you about England being better than anyone other European team than France. England weren't significantly less than others, but England weren't better than Italy, Portugal, Holland or Spain either.

 

[Bwuk]

It should of been set up completely differently. In 2006 they had a strong side, and should of beaten that Portugal side. If they had lined up better I'd of fancied them giving France a game too.

Robinson
Neville - Ferdinand - Terry - AshleyCole
Hargreaves - Scholes
Beckham - Gerrard - JoeCole
Rooney​

That would of given them a lot better chance. Could take Joe Cole off and move Gerrard outwide and put Carrick deep in games where they needed to keep the ball. Scholes should of been begged to come.

 

[Nanook]

I don't agree about Carragher. Never rated him highly and always thought he was a liability. There are reasons why Liverpool hasn't competed for a PL title for a long time and players like Carragher playing 700 games is one of those reasons. Hargreaves has barely had an impact in the English NT has he? At first in his Bayern days he was kind of overlooked I think? Once he did make his entrance into the NT he moved to Man Utd quite soon afterwards but he was injured a lot. At least that's my memory. He was good on his peak, but at first he was overlooked by the NT because he didn't play in England probably and then he became injury-prone.

Owen's goal against Argentina gave him the status he had. Although I would agree with you than injuries also had a negative effect on his carreer I feel like he never reached the potential that people thought he would reach. In 98 he was considered on the the brightest young strikers on the planet and that goal against Argentina basicly confirmed that. After that he never really confirmed that anymore. Of course he had some good years after that, but he never turned into a topclass striker.

I don't agree with you about England being better than anyone other European team than France. England weren't significantly less than others, but England weren't better than Italy, Portugal, Holland or Spain either.

Hargreaves was a midfielder who isn't much younger than Lampard and Gerrard so it was always going to be hard for him to make an impact in the national team but he was a very good player for both Bayern and United, it's just injuries took a large part of his career away from him.

Michael Owen was European player of the year in 2001, Figo won it in 2000 and Ronaldo in 2002, that's not bad company to be in is it? Owen in his prime world class, he was fulfilling his potential until again injuries derailed his career. Between 2002-2004 I would absolutely say England were better than Spain, Netherlands and Portugal. Holland didn't qualify for the 2002 World Cup and only won one game in normal time against Latvia in 2004. Italy might have been better than us back then and maybe my England bias is telling me otherwise. Spain and Portugal were good teams but I would have still fancied England against either of them.

 

[bishblaize]

World cup 2002- Finished 1st in the qualifying group ahead of Germany, won 5-1 against them. Made the quarter finals and lost to winners Brazil. It wasn't a thrashing either, 2-1 victory for the Brazilians after a clever free kick from Ronaldinho that Seaman could have dealt with better. No real shame in losing to Brazil. There was also the small matter of the 1-0 victory against Argentina

That's masking a pretty mediocre effort. Lest we forget Germany were at their lowest point ever in their footballing history and just starting the rebuilding process after a historically bad Euro 2000. They still managed to beat England at Wembley. England's 1-0 win vs Argentina was a decent result and the 3-0 win vs Denmark was good. But they also drew against Nigeria and Sweden. While England didn't get thrashed by Brazil, there was a gulf in class between the two teams and England never really looked like hurting Brazil. Indeed they completely froze in the second half.

Euro 2004 and World Cup 2006- Knocked out in the quarters on penalties against Portugal. Absolutely fine margins

Euro 2004 was probably England's last decent effort in a tournament, with good wins against Switzerland and Croatia, albeit they fluffed their lines against France. There was little between them and Portugal in an exciting 2-2, and of course Portugal were the home team.

WC 2006 though was very unimpressive. They managed to top their group, but that's the minimum given that it contained Sweden, Trinidad & Tobago and Paraguay, and they were mediocre in every game. Their game vs Ecuador at the Ro16 (then 39th in the world) was poor too, going through after a Beckham special but doing not a lot else. Unlike two years earlier they weren't really as good as Portugal in their draw, and only Own Hargreaves came off the pitch with any credit.

Plus I don't really buy the line that England were unlucky because they weren't very good at pens. That's like saying they're good except for scoring, or keeping clean sheets. Pens are an esoteric part of the game I agree, but they're not a total lottery. Its no coincidence that Germany, Argentina and Brazil are the three teams with the best records in penalties in World Cups.

In the end England's golden generation managed a historic 5-1 win against Germany, a good 1-0 win against Argentina, some fair wins against teams ranked around 20th in the world and below and a pair of battling draws against Portugal. With the odd decent friendly mixed in there. No-one should be proud of that.

 

[Mockney]

They were so called because the English media are incapable of objectivity.

On paper they were just as golden as the contemporary Portuguese or current Belgium "golden generation", both nicknamed in their own countries.

The Irish golden generation never won the Rugby World Cup either, but there's luckily way more shit to win in Rugby. Only one thing every 2 years to win in football.

It's perfectly fine to call those players a golden generation IMO. It refers to the quality of the players born within that generation (Campbell, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Neviile, Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Owen, Rooney etc) not the quality of the team assembled from them.

 

[Abizzz]

England was definitely one of the best teams in Europe in 2002-2004, other than France I would say we were better than everybody else, Italy were arguably better but I still would have fancied our chances against them.

2004 Greece was a level above the English team...

Alright i'm going into hiding.

 

[moses]

On paper they were just as golden as the contemporary Portuguese or current Belgium "golden generation", both nicknamed in their own countries.

Yep, not sure what your point is though.

That said, by Belgian standards, this crop is fairly spectacular. The Golden generation of England fame were no better than the Euro 88 Italia 90 team and England are also ex World Cup Champions, so not all that Golden even by domestic standards. The portuguese team was really talented but lacked a number 9, but were at least very entertaining.

 

[Nanook]

2004 Greece was a level above the English team....

Well they weren't, one good tournament doesn't make a team good just like France crashing out of the 2002 world cup without winning a game didn't make them a bad team.

 

[Abizzz]

Well they weren't, one good tournament doesn't make a team good just like France crashing out of the 2002 world cup without winning a game didn't make them a bad team.

Well I disagree about the second part of your quote. A team that crashes out of the group at a WC or EC is always shite. The individual players constituting that team might be great in their positions, but if they don't perform as a team they're a bad team...

2002 French team was bad. As this years Portugal team. Great players on both teams, but that says feck all about team performance.

 

[Mockney]

Yep, not sure what your point is though.

That every media is incapable of being objective and that the quality of those players was genuinely impressive.

I don't really agree about 88 & 90 teams. Aside from Shilton, Gazza, Barnes & Robson, I'd say every player was a notch below. Steve Bull made the squad. But then it's hard to accurately compare. We certainly had a better team ethic though.

 

[Daslogisch]

Hargreaves was a midfielder who isn't much younger than Lampard and Gerrard so it was always going to be hard for him to make an impact in the national team but he was a very good player for both Bayern and United, it's just injuries took a large part of his career away from him.

Michael Owen was European player of the year in 2001, Figo won it in 2000 and Ronaldo in 2002, that's not bad company to be in is it? Owen in his prime world class, he was fulfilling his potential until again injuries derailed his career. Between 2002-2004 I would absolutely say England were better than Spain, Netherlands and Portugal. Holland didn't qualify for the 2002 World Cup and only won one game in normal time against Latvia in 2004. Italy might have been better than us back then and maybe my England bias is telling me otherwise. Spain and Portugal were good teams but I would have still fancied England against either of them.

In 2002 Holland was far better than England. We didn't qualify for the WC, but had we been there we could easily have won it. 2002 we still had our golden 98/00 generation and they were still in their prime. We just had an unlucky qualification, a tough group and some managerial mistakes by v.Gaal which caused us to miss out. Doesn't change the fact that we really had one of the best teams of the world back then. Had we been there we'd at least have made the semi's again. That Dutch team was also a typical tournament team and they were definitely more talented than England.

In 2004 most of them were past their absolute best, although players like De Boer, Stam, Davids, Cocu, Seedorf and Overmars were still very good players. Then we obviously still had Van der Sar, Van Nistelrooy, Van Bronckhorst and Makaay in their prime as well and Robben, Sneijder and Van der Vaart were the new kids on the block. That team wasn't less than England. We had a shit manager though. We took only 4 points out of the group, but we were in the group of death (as per usual) with two other title-contenders. Especially the Czech's were really strong back then and a big mistake by the manager who took off Robben whilst he was by far our most dangerous attacker whilst we were ahead had a big influence on us losing that match. Against Sweden we didn't have the best match, but they were very hard to crack and our coach was a known coward so our gameplan was not to take too many risks. We finally won a shootout that match though after losing a penaltyshootout in '92, '96, '98 and '00. Our record at that time was about as bad as England's. Then in the semi's we lost to the home country Portugal, who are also our fear opponents as they always beat us. I definitely would have fancied our chances against England there. England would be shitting their pants for RvN anyway and the unknown Robben would have torn G. Neville apart. England's football suits our football anyway as we always outclass England tactically. England play an open game all the time, as I said I had definitely fancied our chances.

England had a good team back than, much closer to the topteams than they are are right now. But in all honesty I never saw them as a real contender for the title. Even in 2002/2004 I fancied the usual suspects (France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Holland - although we didn't take part in 2002) more than England. A big reason is probably because England have been miles behind tactically on other European and even South American teams for ages now. Even the Premier League is tactically miles behind on other big leagues. It's only for foreign managers like Wenger, Mourinho and even Benitez and obviously the big money in the PL bringing the best players there why PL-teams have reached great results in European football in the past 15 years. Those foreign managers and topplayers brought some tactical understanding to the big PL-teams. The tactical level of the midtable and lower PL-teams is still appalling.

This is why I don't see England being a true contender to win a EC or WC anytime soon. The tactical and technical level of English players (and managers) is too low and far behind on the rest of the world. Basicly England could as well have been an African team. The tactical and tactical level is that low and it's only about strenght and speed. Small countries rarely exist anymore as they've all made steps tactically. Just look at Costa Rica. They have managed great results, but they really aren't that great of a team. It consists of players playing in smaller leagues or lower teams in big leagues. Even some starting players still play in their own league. Yet they managed results against teams with players in the best teams in the world. Or look at Holland, playing with 2/3 star players, but besides that a big part of the team plays in a highly devaluated Dutch league. But the technical/tactical basics are still there and the manager gets the best out of his player by making the right choices very time.

England have tried foreign managers with tactical qualities (Eriksson and Cappello) but it hasn't worked. The players need to have the tactical understanding themselves. English football is about strength and pace. Football of the rest of the world is about possesssion, passing, moving and tactical understanding. England's players don't understand that well enough. Not even the 'golden generation' did. This is why England eventually loses in these tournaments. Even if there is a 'golden generation' and all player hit their best form. Eventually England will face an opponent that will tactically outclass them.

If England want to be a serious title contender in these tournaments the English youthacademy needs dramatic changes. Focus needs to be on tactical and technical development rather than on strength and pace. Obviously those qualities are a factor and can be important qualities later on. But a we say in Dutch 'he who isn't strong, should be smart'. In the end the smart (tactical) usually beat the strong.

 

[Nanook]

Well I disagree about the second part of your quote. A team that crashes out of the group at a WC or EC is always shite. The individual players constituting that team might be great in their positions, but if they don't perform as a team they're a bad team...

2002 French team was bad. As this years Portugal team. Great players on both teams, but that says feck all about team performance.

Do you not think it's arbitrary to judge a team on 3 games? Italy didn't win a game in South Africa but then got to the Euro final two years later with mostly the same set of players.

 

[Abizzz]

Do you not think it's arbitrary to judge a team on 3 games? Italy didn't win a game in South Africa but then got to the Euro final two years later with mostly the same set of players.

Well it depends... Concerning club teams i'd find it arbitrary to judge them on 3 games. They're assembled for 38 games and can prove their worth in the other 35. National teams however are put together for these 3 games, and won't get another chance to show whether they're any good for another 2 years... so I judge them on those 3 games. Concerning the Italy expample i'd contend that those were different teams composed of the same players.

Outside of the world cup, copa amèrica and the european cup I don't care about national teams to be honest. Confed cup and olympics mean very little to me... Qualification has to be a given for any team considered decent...

Alltogether i'd say good teams perform when it counts... and those that don't aren't good (IMO obviously).

 

[moses]

That every media is incapable of being objective and that the quality of those players was genuinely impressive.

I don't really agree about 88 & 90 teams. Aside from Shilton, Gazza, Barnes & Robson, I'd say every player was a notch below. Steve Bull made the squad. But then it's hard to accurately compare. We certainly had a better team ethic though.

But as I pointed out, neither of the others had an actual world cup winning generation to compare them to.

And that was a great squad, Beardsley, Waddle? Centre backs Adams, Butcher, Walker and Wright? Hoddle couldn't make the '88 starting 11.

 

[GreatNumber7s]

What a great team of individuals we had! depressing that the QF's is the best they managed!

 

[Mockney]

But as I pointed out, neither of the others had an actual world cup winning generation to compare them to.

That's fair, but then that's not really the criteria. Portugal and Belgium have had previous golden gens in the 60s and 80s. Brazil have had several 'golden' generations. It's also probably fair to say that individually those players were better than the '66 side. Charlton, Moore, Greaves and Banks are probably the only people you could claim were on a similar level. Geoff Hurst for example was an average player who had an exceptional game he's lived off for 50 years! If you take '66 away, we've never had a record that suggests we're a big powerhouse player who could've won it. So getting a bunch of 'special' players through did seem like a big deal.

It depends whether you think the phrase means "A great generation of players" or "the team that achieved the most"

I'm not saying we should've won the WC (we were never in the top 3 teams at any tournament) but I also don't think it was particularly silly to apply it to that crop of players, who at least at club level did prove themselves to be special (10 of them won the Champions League, and 5 of them will get to 100 caps)

And that was a great squad, Beardsley, Waddle? Centre backs Adams, Butcher, Walker and Wright? Hoddle couldn't make the '88 starting 11.

Hoddle was surely the generation before (though tbf, you could possibly lay a claim to Rooney not quite being in the prime England one) and Butcher, Walker and Wright were not (IMO) on the same level as Ferdinand, Campbell, Neville or Cole. Beardsley and Waddle? Good, but I wouldn't say they were Gerrard or Scholes level either. But then tbf I'm not of that generation, so my comparisons are bound to be a little skewed towards the people I saw more.

 

[moses]

That's fair, but then that's not really the criteria. Portugal and Belgium have had previous golden gens in the 60s and 80s. Brazil have had several 'golden' generations. It's also probably fair to say that individually those players were better than the '66 side. Charlton, Moore, Greaves and Banks are probably the only people you could claim were on a similar level. Geoff Hurst for example was an average player who had an exceptional game he's lived off for 50 years! It depends whether you think the phrase means "A great generation of players" or "the team that achieved the most"

I'm not saying we should've won the WC, but I also don't think it was particularly silly to apply it to that crop of players, who at least at club level did prove themselves to be special (10 of them won the Champions League, and 5 of them will get to 100 caps)



Hoddle was surely the generation before (though tbf, you could possibly lay a claim to Rooney not quite being in the prime England one) and Butcher, Walker and Wright were not (IMO) on the same level as Ferdinand, Campbell, Neville or Cole. Beardsley and Waddle? Good, but I wouldn't say they were Gerrard or Scholes level either. But then tbf I'm not of that generation, so my comparisons are bound to be a little skewed towards the people I saw more.

All reasonable, but I loved Waddle.

The one thing I would say is that the earlier squad had a better overall balance. For all the great names the 'golden generation' still never managed to look comfortable in possession or dangerous in attack. And lack genuine quality out wide. Also their domestic success was to a man augmented by forriners with nous and technical application that they and their domestic peers never showed as a collective in the England (hair)shirt.

My point is that while they looked to be likely to bring success at one point, long ago, nothing they did in an England shirt really backed this up. They had no good width and didn't trust their best midfielder to play in CM. Scholes was a victim of the same disease that kept Hoddle from the starting line up over the years. Scholes was droppped in favour of two midfielders who provided thrust but no more. This was to compensate for the lack of pace and width but only made the inability to hold on to the ball worse. I think the abilities of Lampard and Gerrard are hugely overstated. I think Waddle, Beardsley and Barnes were much better footballers, with better technical ability and tactical discipline.

Campbell, Ferdinand, Beckham, Cole and Scholes were definite ones that would have walked into most sides definitely. The others in my opinion are a bit overhyped. The problem with these is that they are all central and deep and Scoles was underused. So it was an amazing defence and Beckham to make it all happen in front of them, which for a few years is exactly what happened.

The whole period was one of unease and formation/manager unrest, just like now.

 

[bishblaize]

Also their domestic success was to a man augmented by forriners with nous and technical application that they and their domestic peers never showed as a collective in the England (hair)shirt.

A good point. No-one made Gerrard look better than Alonso.

 

[Mockney]

All reasonable, but I loved Waddle.

The one thing I would say is that the earlier squad had a better overall balance. For all the great names the 'golden generation' still never managed to look comfortable in possession or dangerous in attack. And lack genuine quality out wide. Also their domestic success was to a man augmented by forriners with nous and technical application that they and their domestic peers never showed as a collective in the England (hair)shirt.

My point is that while they looked to be likely to bring success at one point, long ago, nothing they did in an England shirt really backed this up. They had no good width and didn't trust their best midfielder to play in CM. Scholes was a victim of the same disease that kept Hoddle from the starting line up over the years. Scholes was droppped in favour of two midfielders who provided thrust but no more. This was to compensate for the lack of pace and width but only made the inability to hold on to the ball worse. I think the abilities of Lampard and Gerrard are hugely overstated. I think Waddle, Beardsley and Barnes were much better footballers, with better technical ability and tactical discipline.

Campbell, Ferdinand, Beckham, Cole and Scholes were definite ones that would have walked into most sides definitely. The others in my opinion are a bit overhyped. The problem with these is that they are all central and deep and Scoles was underused. So it was an amazing defence and Beckham to make it all happen in front of them, which for a few years is exactly what happened.

The whole period was one of unease and formation/manager unrest, just like now.

I wouldn't argue with any of that. Width was certainly a big problem for England post 90. Especially when Beckham was intent on playing centrally.

 

[Name Changed]

The golden generation was doomed to fail as soon as the stupid decision was made to mess around with Paul Scholes so that Gerrard and Lampard could be accommodated. Failure.