Euro 96 - Why didn't Beckham and Scholes go?

[RUCK4444]

You're making the massive mistake of thinking about the players overall in hindsight, as opposed to how they were at that precise point in time.

And Scholes and Beckham weren't ready at that stage.

Redknapp changed the game when he came on v Scotland in 96. It was a real turning point.

Yeah of course that needs to be factored in, I have, and I still think any version of Paul Scholes trumps a peak Redknapp.

Jamie was a painfully average player. Hindsight is 20/20 and at the end of the day England did well, but could have done better.

 

[Amir]

Yeah of course that needs to be factored in, I have, and I still think any version of Paul Scholes trumps a peak Redknapp.

The 1996 version of Paul Scholes was just not a midfielder. Fergie started using him there the following season, but until then I remember him playing mostly as a forward for us. He even took Cole's place in the starting 11 for the last couple of decisive league matches in 1995/96 when Andy was struggling badly.

 

[2cents]

Scholes wouldn't have been a massive upgrade on these?? Redknapp in particular doesn't come close, not within a light year, of Scholes worst ever season.

Scholes was barely on the radar in the summer of 1996.

 

[duffer]

Scholes wouldn't have been a massive upgrade on these?? Redknapp in particular doesn't come close, not within a light year, of Scholes worst ever season.

In the 1995/96 season (and before), had Scholes even played as a midfielder for the first team?

Obviously Scholes was miles better than those in the end but at that point in time, literally nobody was complaining about the managers decision to pick those ahead of Scholes for a midfield role.

 

[Sandikan]

Chaps above get it. It is fairly clear in fairness.


It's a real stretch to think either 96 version of Scholes or Becks would have added more than even the Subs back then.

 

[DixieDean]

You have a surprisingly negative attitude to a rare tournament England have looked as good as anyone there.
Arguably only 3 times in history - 66,90 and 96.

It was a rare time England got to a semi. It does not mean they played well, though.

I also hold a similar opinion about England in '90. Overall they did not play that well throughout the tournament. Used up a lot of luck on the way and then saved their best performance for the semi-final.

 

[Josh 76]

Can't believe some of the posts I'm reading.

"England didn't play that well at euro 96"

"They could have have done better"

"Scholes and Beckham would have made a difference"

The Lock down must be effecting people more than is being reported.

 

[RUCK4444]

Chaps above get it. It is fairly clear in fairness.


It's a real stretch to think either 96 version of Scholes or Becks would have added more than even the Subs back then.

I think your underrating Scholes at that time, either that or overrating England's bench. Scholes had a solid 95-96 season, scoring 14 goals and stepping in for the likes of Cantona when he was suspended. I somehow doubt that Redknapp, Barmby and co. would have done the same.

I'm not saying it was a definite mistake to not take Scholes but he had to be considered, as an emerging talent and a regular in the first British club to do the double twice. It's at least to be considered as a wild card, that emerging youngster that national teams sometimes take to mix it up.

But like I say 96 version of Scholes was as good as some of that England squad IMO.

 

[RUCK4444]

Can't believe some of the posts I'm reading.

"England didn't play that well at euro 96"

"They could have have done better"

"Scholes and Beckham would have made a difference"

The Lock down must be effecting people more than is being reported.

In reality English overhype that tournament and that squad should have gotten to a final. Wales got to a major international Semi-Final recently, it's not an achievement to not win a tournament.

I don't know why people reminisce over euro 96 like it were some golden age and major achievement.

 

[the chameleon]

I'm not sure if people were old enough in 1996 but Scholes and Beckham were just coming through.

Anderton was already established. I remember wanting him to sign for us. Redknapp was also touted very highly and was seen as mainstay in the England midfield for the next decade.

After the Euros, I recall the first game of the season vs Wimbledon, when Beckham scored from the halfway line. It was 96/97 when he had his first breakthrough season. Scholes got established a little later than that. At the time, he was great young striker, but up front was stacked and Robbie Fowler was hot property.

 

[Amir]

I think your underrating Scholes at that time, either that or overrating England's bench. Scholes had a solid 95-96 season, scoring 14 goals and stepping in for the likes of Cantona when he was suspended. I somehow doubt that Redknapp, Barmby and co. would have done the same.

I'm not saying it was a definite mistake to not take Scholes but he had to be considered, as an emerging talent and a regular in the first British club to do the double twice. It's at least to be considered as a wild card, that emerging youngster that national teams sometimes take to mix it up.

But his competition at the time included Shearer, Sheringham, Fowler and Ferdinand (and Wright or Collymore who were left out) Not Redknapp or Barmby.

 

[FootballHQ]

Actually was Barmby massively rated at the time? Just looking and he was at Boro but only stayed there a year and then moved on to Everton where he underwhelmed in several near misses from relegation. Then Liverpool picked him up and he did alright as a squad player. Did score in the 5-1 but seems a bit of an enigma in how good he actually was. Wierdly also scored the first goals under Hoddle and Sven.

 

[Sandikan]

Can't believe some of the posts I'm reading.

"England didn't play that well at euro 96"

"They could have have done better"

"Scholes and Beckham would have made a difference"

The Lock down must be effecting people more than is being reported.

Internet fans will argue black is white at times.

 

[2cents]

Actually was Barmby massively rated at the time? Just looking and he was at Boro but only stayed there a year and then moved on to Everton where he underwhelmed in several near misses from relegation. Then Liverpool picked him up and he did alright as a squad player. Did score in the 5-1 but seems a bit of an enigma in how good he actually was. Wierdly also scored the first goals under Hoddle and Sven.

I remember Gordon Strachan (I think?) picking him over Giggs as his “best young player in the league” circa 92/93. He seemed to hold on to that kind of reputation long after it became obvious he was bang average.

 

[Gio]

I think your underrating Scholes at that time, either that or overrating England's bench. Scholes had a solid 95-96 season, scoring 14 goals and stepping in for the likes of Cantona when he was suspended. I somehow doubt that Redknapp and Barmby would have done the same.

I'm not saying it was a definite mistake to not take Scholes but he had to be considered, as an emerging talent and a regular in the first British club to do the double twice. It's at least to be considered as a wild card, that emerging youngster that national teams sometimes take to mix it up.

But like I say 96 version of Scholes was as good as some of that England squad IMO.

At that stage in his career Scholes was effectively a second striker. To get into the squad he would have had to oust one of the four forwards who were all on fire that season - Shearer scoring 37, Fowler 36, Ferdinand 29 and Sheringham 24. England have never gone into a tournament with such a collection of on-form striking talent. There was no way a comparative rookie was going to muscle his way in, regardless of his potential.

Even as a midfield option, he wasn’t really in the mix. Redknapp was a deep-lying playmaker who offered both cover for Gazza and Ince and a different tactical option shown by his introduction against Scotland that made the team click for the first time in the tournament. Platt was not quite the player of his peak but he was still only 29, a thoroughbred international player and proven tournament performer. And Barmby was simply back up for Anderton and McManaman on the flanks, able to play on both sides and cover areas that Scholes would not have managed. Fundamentally he came through in an area where England were well stacked with a strength in depth that would not have always been the case in other major tournaments.

 

[RUCK4444]

But his competition at the time included Shearer, Sheringham, Fowler and Ferdinand (and Wright or Collymore who were left out) Not Redknapp or Barmby.

Like I said I think he or Becks should have been considered as a wildcard ahead of the dossers in midfield. Simply pointing out there are some average names amongst an otherwise stellar side and that Scholes wasn’t just a kid, he had played a part in a campaign double.

 

[RUCK4444]

Internet fans will argue black is white at times.

Sounds familiar that, like when England fans describe Euro 96 as though they won something.

Truth is they won nothing, so selection can and should be scrutinised.

 

[Amir]

Like I said I think he or Becks should have been considered as a wildcard ahead of the dossers in midfield. Simply pointing out there are some average names amongst an otherwise stellar side and that Scholes wasn’t just a kid, he had played a part in a campaign double.

Why would anyone consider Scholes as a midfield option for Euro 96 when his club manager did not?

Fergie was also not that keen on Becks on the right which is why he wanted Anderton and signed Poborsky after Euro 96.

 

[RUCK4444]

Why would anyone consider Scholes as a midfield option for Euro 96 when his club manager did not?

Fergie was also not that keen on Becks on the right which is why he wanted Anderton and signed Poborsky after Euro 96.

In my view he wasn’t ever an out and out striker, he was clearly versatile and a more talented footballer than some of the names in the squad.

jeez peeps, touchy much on the 96’ topic?

He would have definitely buried a penalty for a start!

 

[MrMarcello]

Actually was Barmby massively rated at the time? Just looking and he was at Boro but only stayed there a year and then moved on to Everton where he underwhelmed in several near misses from relegation. Then Liverpool picked him up and he did alright as a squad player. Did score in the 5-1 but seems a bit of an enigma in how good he actually was. Wierdly also scored the first goals under Hoddle and Sven.

SAF tried to sign Barmby around 1999/2000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/825166.stm

 

[Amir]

In my view he wasn’t ever an out and out striker, he was clearly versatile and a more talented footballer than some of the names in the squad.

jeez peeps, touchy much on the 96’ topic?

He would have definitely buried a penalty for a start!

Not touchy at all, I just think hindsight is seriously affecting people.

Whatever Scholes was, I can't see anyone taking a 22-year old who wasn't a regular for his club for a big international tournament - for a role he hasn't played, at least at senior level.

As for him scoring a penalty - how about the 2005 FA Cup final?

 

[Chairman Steve]

Pretty sure Sir Alex would have been fecking delighted they only took Gary and Phil to the bi-annual England tournament letdown party and I don’t even think Phil played a minute.

Pretty much means 96/97 goes off without any early hitches from the Sir Alex perspective. You could tell he got more pissed off with the England setup once his Utd youngsters became more prevalent internationally roughly after Euro 96. He probably couldn’t believe his luck that Bruce and Pallister never got to deal with international duties despite them winning silverware on a regular basis together, while the likes of Tony Adams and Mark Wright go out and fail for England.

 

[djembatheking]

It has just come up on teletext that Klinsmann is out of the England v Germany game .