How Easy Is International Football?

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

England? Really? Look at the defence and midfield England had out yesterday.

England’s midfield is better than United’s. Defence is pretty similar when Maguire is fit. The fact that Shaw Maguire and AWB are English… Stones is a better bet than Maguire.

the only two players United have that are not English and would get in the England team are Bruno and Pogba.

 

[acnumber9]

England’s midfield is better than United’s. Defence is pretty similar when Maguire is fit. The fact that Shaw Maguire and AWB are English… Stones is a better bet than Maguire.

the only two players United have that are not English and would get in the England team are Bruno and Pogba.

It’s not exactly a vintage United squad though. De Gea is a much better keeper than Jordan Pickford. I don’t particularly rate United’s midfield, but I wouldn’t say Kalvin Phillips is better than Fred or McTominay either.

Whether they are or aren’t is open to great debate. It doesn’t really answer the question as to whether international football is easy though.To use England as an example, they can win most of their games without breaking much of a sweat.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

It’s not exactly a vintage United squad though. De Gea is a much better keeper than Jordan Pickford. I don’t particularly rate United’s midfield, but I wouldn’t say Kalvin Phillips is better than Fred or McTominay either.

Whether they are or aren’t is open to great debate. It doesn’t really answer the question as to whether international football is easy though.To use England as an example, they can win most of their games without breaking much of a sweat.

its a strange debate - and I think there are two debates happening here.

firstly - there’s a lot of cannon fodder in international football, so stats are padded out. Double header against the Faroes in qualifying - yes please. There are too many easy games, and even if playing another good side - it’s more often in friendlies which are completely pointless. The only games that matter internationally these days are in the tournaments. Are those easy? No.

secondly, would an international team compete with a club side if playing each other…

with a one off game, the club side should win due to cohesion and playing regularly. could England theoretically compete in the PL? Even if you could clone players…

I think this England side would be in a title race.

 

[Red_Aaron]

Isn't a part of the problem that UEFAs coefficient points system means everyone's better off consistently beating poor teams in friendlies rather than actually testing themselves against good teams?

I think the nations league was hoping to somewhat combat that

 

[Raees]

England? Really? Look at the defence and midfield England had out yesterday.

If England had Maguire fit? You’ve then got wealth of options at right and left back. Only the keeper is not top quality.

Midfield - stacked compared to your average EPL side and better options than United who finished second in the league.

If Klopp, Tuchel or Pep manages that squad it wins the UCL or very close and is favourite for the league.

 

[acnumber9]

its a strange debate - and I think there are two debates happening here.

firstly - there’s a lot of cannon fodder in international football, so stats are padded out. Double header against the Faroes in qualifying - yes please. There are too many easy games, and even if playing another good side - it’s more often in friendlies which are completely pointless. The only games that matter internationally these days are in the tournaments. Are those easy? No.

secondly, would an international team compete with a club side if playing each other…

with a one off game, the club side should win due to cohesion and playing regularly. could England theoretically compete in the PL? Even if you could clone players…

I think this England side would be in a title race.

The majority of games are played outside big tournaments so on balance I would say competing in international football is easier for bigger sides than it is in club football more often. Obviously at the highest levels, competing against the likes of France, it’s very difficult.

If we use England as an example. They’ve played France competitively 3 times since 1992. They’ve played San Marino 7 times in the same period.

 

[acnumber9]

If England had Maguire fit? You’ve then got wealth of options at right and left back. Only the keeper is not top quality.

Midfield - stacked compared to your average EPL side and better options than United who finished second in the league.

If Klopp, Tuchel or Pep manages that squad it wins the UCL or very close and is favourite for the league.

Is the England squad better than Bayern Munich’s? I wouldn’t say so. It’s a fair debate to be had. It doesn’t really show that international football isn’t easy for even average nations for the most part.

 

[Wolf1992]

Is the England squad better than Bayern Munich’s? I wouldn’t say so. It’s a fair debate to be had. It doesn’t really show that international football isn’t easy for even average nations for the most part.

It's tricky, because for Cristiano it's way harder to face France and Germany playing for Portugal than face Bayern Munich and Chelsea playing for Real Madrid.Because peak Cristiano in Portugal never got the quality he had at Real Madrid and ManUnited.

But on the other hand for Mbappé it's easier to face Germany,Argentina, and Brazil playing with France, than face Bayern Munich/Chelsea/Liverpool/ playing with PSG, because he has more quality teammates in France than in PSG(except Neymar).

So it's all about POV, NT tournaments are harder for Cristiano because he plays for Portugal (they almost get eliminated in WC 2018 groupstage by Iran...yes Iran) and CL Football it's a bit harder for Mbappé because PSG is lacking the quality required to win CL, but he has quality of teammates required to win Euro and WC with France.

 

[SCP]

(they almost get eliminated in WC 2018 groupstage by Iran

Have you seen the game? Actually we missed a penalty and if I am not wrong they had a penalty for them who wasn't or some illegal action on their goal, don't remember that much, but that narrative Cristiano didn't perform because of his team mates isn't valid for 2018, I mean he scored a goal against Morocco and the team was outplayed so I guess is more related to collective problems than blaming the entire team.

 

[ReSchmycling]

Back when the WC was just 16 teams in size the number of international teams trying to qualify was less than today, also the number of professional leagues around the world was significantly lower than today. the growth of football as a sport has grown right alongside the increased access to all National sides to take part. The only people who complain about mismatched games are those from the "big football nations". The minnows look forward to games against the elite teams even knowing they will get thumped. Im in NZ, our first WC was in 82 and at one Confeds cup we got humped badly by Spain. However on the flip side we now have a national team with pro players in a number of decent pro leagues around the world. Our entire International squad is made up of fully professional players. Back in 82 we didnt have any players playing outside NZ or playing professionally. A fair few other countries have seen the same thing happen and also the game of football grow within their own borders. The growth of the game through expanded tournaments that allowed lesser football nations to take part has been significant. Pushing the lesser teams back into little qualifying tournaments would just set back the global development of the game. It is absolutely an elitist attitude.

Personally I don't mind occasional games involving bigger teams and minnows. It's inclusive, the minnows provide an appealing underdog, and even if the overall quality may not be the highest, games can often be more entertaining than when big teams play more mid-ranking ones who mainly just try to cancel them out. But there's surely a lot more potential for football development in a country like New Zealand (population 4.8m) than the really tiny countries like Gibraltar and San Marino (each c.38,000 people), although Iceland (c.340,000 so still nine times bigger) in recent years have shown what can be possible...

For the wider point in this thread about comparing players' goal scoring records, at least there's an element of consistency for current European players, in that most UEFA qualifying groups tend to have one (or sometimes two) of the really weak teams. So players from similarly good teams themselves have somewhat equal opportunities for stat-padding!

 

[MU655]

England? Really? Look at the defence and midfield England had out yesterday.

That was a weird selection.

James, Maguire, Stone, and Shaw would possibly be as good as you can get. And that is not considering you also have Trent, Chillwell, Saka, White, Mings, Trippier, Walker, and Coady for depth. That is very strong.

Midfield is probably the weakest area in the squad, but someone like Klopp could probably get a lot out of Henderson, Rice, Phillips, and Mount. We do lack a Fabinho, but I think that midfield could do the job Liverpool's does, just with a better attacking player in Mount and not as good defensively without Fabinho.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The forward line is insanely good: Grealish, Kane, Sancho with Rashford, Sterling, Calvert-Lewin, Foden as depth. And then there are the options of Greenwood and Watkins.

That England team would challenge for the Premier League title with the right manager.

France, England, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Belgium would all be capable of getting top four in the Premier League. I think Spain would only be able to scrape their way in like Liverpool this season, though.

I don't really know enough about some of Italy's players to judge them.

England, France, and Portugal could possibly win the Premier League