The "England have had it easy" narrative

[Dec9003]

I find the idea that the English are arrogant interesting. I thought that we would beat Croatia, but not because of arrogance. I thought we'd do well because the team had given me faith and optimism, isn't that what the world cups all about? I'm sure the Belgians thought they might beat France, and Sweden and Colombia were surely optimistic about playing us.
Maybe the likes of Shearer and Lineker are overly optimistic, but they don't deserve any thoughts or attention anyway.
I just find the idea that English people thinking their team will perform well being misplaced as arrogance is strange, I thought we were meant to be the miserable/cynical ones?

 

[Lay]

Remember when Croatia beat England 3-2 at Wembley and Michael Owen came out after the match saying no Croatian player would get into the England squad still

 

[JPRouve]

Remember when Croatia beat England 3-2 at Wembley and Michael Owen came out after the match saying no Croatian player would get into the England squad still

After leaving his brochure in Croatia's locker room.

 

[Craig Ward]

Agree about Alli och Lingard. Henderson though has been decent as defensive MF.

Hendo just passes sideways/backwards and mis places most long balls forward.

Very poor.

CM is nowhere near good enough at an elite level

 

[shamans]

Think you're missing the point a bit here to try and justify your dislike for England. Just say you don't like them. It's fine. You don't need to make up an excuse.

No one thinks England overcame great odds beating Tunisia and Sweden. Not even me.

This thread was about the idea that England's run was easy, and while it was more favourable than it could have been, it was no easier than a number of other draws throughout World Cup history. I'll dig the list of semi-final runs out for you if you like.

Nice to see you are passing judgements. I do not dislike England. I support Manchester United an English club and England has Man United players. I have always like the English national team and in early stages did support them but whenever England sense any chance of victory the media/fans become very comical sometimes. Such as this thread.

England had an easy run to the semis. Many other teams in the past have had too. Should it really matter if you win the world cup? No way. Does it take away England's achievement that they reached the Semis? Not in my book. It is still funny and ridiculous to come out and say "hey hey everyone! Remember this hasn't been an easy run!" It is just desperate and funny.

Adding to that, the fact England could not defeat one big team (Colombia was without James...) it was a bit weird seeing the country get so hyped.

I do not dislike England. It is just funny and kind of weird to be honest.

 

[Alex99]

I’m sure you’ll tell me they said nothing wrong.

Completely with you. That was full delusion.

The rating of the squads was baffling. England much better players and Germany are average. Just shows how poorly researched the punditry is, because although a lot of that German team weren't the household names they are now, Neuer moved to Bayern the following summer, Khedira and Ozil to Real Madrid that summer, Badstuber, Kroos and Muller already at Bayern, and Boateng moving from City to Bayern the following summer, yet they couldn't really say anything about them. Ozil had a little video about being a danger, with the solution apparently being to just send out one of the two centre-backs to mark him. Badstuber was identified as a potential weak point because "he might come on for Boateng" and Boateng as a bit weak based on two chances that came to nothing.

Meanwhile, England had David James, Glen Johnson, Michael Dawson, Ledley King, Aaron Lennon, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Jermaine Defoe, Emile Heskey, Robert Green, Peter Crouch, Stephen Warnock and Gareth Barry, which is perhaps the most Harry Redknapp 8th placed West Ham set of players you could get. The line-up even had Milner on the right wing and Gerrard on the left, with them all pretty much deciding that Gerrard's best position was in behind Rooney up front, despite Lineker saying that they'd never played together in that way. This was also brushed off by Dixon by saying they should just beat Germany then consider whether to move Gerrard inside.

The analysis of the group games was the weirdest cognitive dissonance I've seen on punditry for a while. England who failed to score against USA and Algeria, losing to USA, then won 1-0 against Slovenia, were the team full of confidence and growing into the tournament, while Germany looked average and were regressing after beating Australia 4-0, losing 1-0 to Serbia, then beating a good Ghana side 1-0 to win the group.

There was nothing on that level in this tournament though. Aside from perhaps Rio getting a bit carried away between games and deciding England were running away as 3-0 winners last night.

Nice to see you are passing judgements. I do not dislike England. I support Manchester United an English club and England has Man United players. I have always like the English national team and in early stages did support them but whenever England sense any chance of victory the media/fans become very comical sometimes. Such as this thread.

England had an easy run to the semis. Many other teams in the past have had too. Should it really matter if you win the world cup? No way. Does it take away England's achievement that they reached the Semis? Not in my book. It is still funny and ridiculous to come out and say "hey hey everyone! Remember this hasn't been an easy run!" It is just desperate and funny.

Adding to that, the fact England could not defeat one big team (Colombia was without James...) it was a bit weird seeing the country get so hyped.

I do not dislike England. It is just funny and kind of weird to be honest.

England's football team are almost famous for bottling big moments, and more specifically, penalty shootouts. They'd not won a knockout game since 2002 in any tournament, and had never won a World Cup penalty shootout, having lost penalty shootouts in Euro 2004, World Cup 2006, and Euro 2012 since their last knockout win. Despite this, you find it weird that England fans (which includes the pundits) were hyped when they a) won their first ever world cup penalty shoot-out, and b) won their first knockout game in any competition since beating Ecuador in 2002. They then won a second knockout game, a world cup quarter final no less, and did so very comfortably, and reached their first world cup semi-final in nearly 30 years, only the 3rd in their history. And yet, you find it weird that people were hyped.

The rest has been addressed multiple times over in this thread, but you cannot say you like the England national team then come out and go "I went off them because they were hyped to reach a world cup semi-final." Utter nonsense.

 

[MoskvaRed]

Nice to see you are passing judgements. I do not dislike England. I support Manchester United an English club and England has Man United players. I have always like the English national team and in early stages did support them but whenever England sense any chance of victory the media/fans become very comical sometimes. Such as this thread.

England had an easy run to the semis. Many other teams in the past have had too. Should it really matter if you win the world cup? No way. Does it take away England's achievement that they reached the Semis? Not in my book. It is still funny and ridiculous to come out and say "hey hey everyone! Remember this hasn't been an easy run!" It is just desperate and funny.

Adding to that, the fact England could not defeat one big team (Colombia was without James...) it was a bit weird seeing the country get so hyped.

I do not dislike England. It is just funny and kind of weird to be honest.

You have to try to look at it subjectively and remember that expectations were rock bottom. Germany or Brazil getting to the semis by beating Colombia or Sweden would be no big deal. For a team who were last seen at a tournament undergoing mental disintegration against Iceland, it was quite impressive. To put it into context, you probably have different expectations from Ireland compared to United? It’s the same for us albeit at a slightly higher level - after 10 years of soul-destroying dross with managers and players we didn’t care for, we are easily pleased by whatever England achieve however modest the opposition might look on paper.

 

[noodlehair]

I find the idea that the English are arrogant interesting. I thought that we would beat Croatia, but not because of arrogance. I thought we'd do well because the team had given me faith and optimism, isn't that what the world cups all about? I'm sure the Belgians thought they might beat France, and Sweden and Colombia were surely optimistic about playing us.
Maybe the likes of Shearer and Lineker are overly optimistic, but they don't deserve any thoughts or attention anyway.
I just find the idea that English people thinking their team will perform well being misplaced as arrogance is strange, I thought we were meant to be the miserable/cynical ones?

Our media are embarrassing and I think that's what does it...as a lot of people take their impression from that. It wound Modric up enough that he had to take a swipe at the English media and I think it was a fair swipe.

Even the TV coverage is really bad. If you listened to the commentary and punditry on BBC for the Sweden game you would think we won 7-0 with the greatest display of football ever seen and that Sweden never got out of their own half. Where as on ITV they just straight up lie about England.

Our media also started harping on about Croatia being tired and basically wrote them off as a minnow team with stuff like "we'll never get a better chance to reach a final"...I think even Southgate said this. It is arrogant because it's completely dismissive of the opposition. Basically saying you will never play anyone as rubbish as Croatia in a semi final again...when in fact England had the weaker squad of the two.

Then you had the whole plotting an "easy" route to the final thing. From our point of view, yes it is easier than playing Brazil or France...but from an outside perspective, it's disrespectful to the teams we did play. Especially as we aren't good enough to be saying this or that team are easy.

 

[shamans]

England's football team are almost famous for bottling big moments, and more specifically, penalty shootouts. They'd not won a knockout game since 2002 in any tournament, and had never won a World Cup penalty shootout, having lost penalty shootouts in Euro 2004, World Cup 2006, and Euro 2012 since their last knockout win. Despite this, you find it weird that England fans (which includes the pundits) were hyped when they a) won their first ever world cup penalty shoot-out, and b) won their first knockout game in any competition since beating Ecuador in 2002. They then won a second knockout game, a world cup quarter final no less, and did so very comfortably, and reached their first world cup semi-final in nearly 30 years, only the 3rd in their history. And yet, you find it weird that people were hyped.

The rest has been addressed multiple times over in this thread, but you cannot say you like the England national team then come out and go "I went off them because they were hyped to reach a world cup semi-final." Utter nonsense.

You just are not listening to anyone else so I won't bother. This exactly is the sort of stuff which make people laugh at England. You are saying all the media, pundit, fans hype is justified because England (such a massive footballing nation) finally won a penalty shootout and knocked out Sweden?

How can someone possibly dislike a team that is so terrible. At this point is is just sad yet so funny!

You have to try to look at it subjectively and remember that expectations were rock bottom. Germany or Brazil getting to the semis by beating Colombia or Sweden would be no big deal. For a team who were last seen at a tournament undergoing mental disintegration against Iceland, it was quite impressive. To put it into context, you probably have different expectations from Ireland compared to United? It’s the same for us albeit at a slightly higher level - after 10 years of soul-destroying dross with managers and players we didn’t care for, we are easily pleased by whatever England achieve however modest the opposition might look on paper.

I understand that and I believe English supporters should be proud of the fact their team reached the Semis. It's good progress and a big achievement for England but please don't make threads about how your opposition was not easy. That doesn't take away from your achievement but if you're going out of your way to prove they were difficult it is just comical.

At the end of the day you need to realize why teams around love laughing at England. It's not that most hate England, at least I do not (I like England). It is just funny how English fans have the need to hype up a team that is so bad/average to ridiculous ends without achieving feck all.

 

[iammemphis]

You just are not listening to anyone else so I won't bother. This exactly is the sort of stuff which make people laugh at England. You are saying all the media, pundit, fans hype is justified because England (such a massive footballing nation) finally won a penalty shootout and knocked out Sweden?

How can someone possibly dislike a team that is so terrible. At this point is is just sad yet so funny!




I understand that and I believe English supporters should be proud of the fact their team reached the Semis. It's good progress and a big achievement for England but please don't make threads about how your opposition was not easy. That doesn't take away from your achievement but if you're going out of your way to prove they were difficult it is just comical.

At the end of the day you need to realize why teams around love laughing at England. It's not that most hate England, at least I do not (I like England). It is just funny how English fans have the need to hype up a team that is so bad/average to ridiculous ends without achieving feck all.

Do yourself a favour mate and move on from this thread. You don’t get it, at all. A bad/average side doesn’t get to the Semi-finals of a world cup first of all and England fans love being over dramatic and hysterical over football. Its what we do and we do it best of all. 99% of the fans do it for a laugh, because its funny bouncing with a load of your mates and strangers being utterly ridiculous about our teams chances at football. Its hilarious. I love it. We’re taking the piss out of ourselves full well knowing it isn’t coming home, and telling us to calm down will only make us worse. But imagine that day when we finally do win a world cup/euros (which with the following generations coming through it is a real possibility).

 

[The United Irishman]

'You don't buy into it'...Of course not! Croatia is the first true test and it's come as late as the semi's! So yeah, they have had it easy.

This one's for the OP and the silly rants he went on after I stated this.

 

[MoskvaRed]

You just are not listening to anyone else so I won't bother. This exactly is the sort of stuff which make people laugh at England. You are saying all the media, pundit, fans hype is justified because England (such a massive footballing nation) finally won a penalty shootout and knocked out Sweden?

How can someone possibly dislike a team that is so terrible. At this point is is just sad yet so funny!




I understand that and I believe English supporters should be proud of the fact their team reached the Semis. It's good progress and a big achievement for England but please don't make threads about how your opposition was not easy. That doesn't take away from your achievement but if you're going out of your way to prove they were difficult it is just comical.

At the end of the day you need to realize why teams around love laughing at England. It's not that most hate England, at least I do not (I like England). It is just funny how English fans have the need to hype up a team that is so bad/average to ridiculous ends without achieving feck all.

I don’t think we were hyping up England - it was just a good feeling to reconnect to the national side at a time when the country is a shambles. We even won a penalty shoot out! But no problems with the neighbours having a laugh - that’s football.

 

[Infra-red]

I don’t think we were hyping up England - it was just a good feeling to reconnect to the national side at a time when the country is a shambles. We even won a penalty shoot out! But no problems with the neighbours having a laugh - that’s football.

Agreed. That also seems to have contributed to the general outlook of people I've spoken to today - nowhere near the levels of misery and despair that usually accompany our exit from a tournament - on the contrary, while people are a little disappointed not to make the final, most have had a brilliant three weeks (the weather probably a contributory factor here) and have acknowledged that this is the most fun they've had watching England in years and years and years. Lots of happy people out there, which makes a change.

 

[spiriticon]

I beg to differ on that.

Conte accepted the national team with Italy and would be most certainly interested to do the same with England especially since it can afford him. In medical terms if you need a surgeon and the top surgeon refuses to operate on you, you don't settle for a cobbler.

Well we just about have Conte today. But who else? Also, you assume he is 'most certainly interested', when he may not necessarily be since he's already experienced international management with Italy. He is likely to prefer club football.

Conte will fare no better than Capello anyway imo.

 

[shamans]

I don’t think we were hyping up England - it was just a good feeling to reconnect to the national side at a time when the country is a shambles. We even won a penalty shoot out! But no problems with the neighbours having a laugh - that’s football.

Agreed. That also seems to have contributed to the general outlook of people I've spoken to today - nowhere near the levels of misery and despair that usually accompany our exit from a tournament - on the contrary, while people are a little disappointed not to make the final, most have had a brilliant three weeks (the weather probably a contributory factor here) and have acknowledged that this is the most fun they've had watching England in years and years and years. Lots of happy people out there, which makes a change.

I really enjoyed England's penalty win. I think there were a lot of sensible fans and like I mentioned before, England should be proud of the fact they reached the Semis -- easy route or not.

Just think threads like this one, claiming England have NOT had an easy run into the semis and how turning into British media sometimes seemed like Brazil of 70's is playing this world cup was a bit annoying.

Not to mention this is England. Home of the premier league. It isn't like South Korea a total minnow making it to the Semis. When I laugh at English fans I laugh at the ones who over exaggerate the achievements of this team. I don't laugh at the team, or achievement, or the sensible fans. Semis is a very good achievement.

 

[Infra-red]

I really enjoyed England's penalty win. I think there were a lot of sensible fans and like I mentioned before, England should be proud of the fact they reached the Semis -- easy route or not.

Just think threads like this one, claiming England have NOT had an easy run into the semis and how turning into British media sometimes seemed like Brazil of 70's is playing this world cup was a bit annoying.

Not to mention this is England. Home of the premier league. It isn't like South Korea a total minnow making it to the Semis. When I laugh at English fans I laugh at the ones who over exaggerate the achievements of this team. I don't laugh at the team, or achievement, or the sensible fans. Semis is a very good achievement.

That's fair enough. I don't disagree with any of that. I also think we've definitely had an easier run than we might otherwise have expected to do. That's not to disrespect Colombia, Sweden or Croatia, who all earned their places too, but to be able to get all the way (potentially) to the final without having to play any of Brazil, Germany, France, Spain, Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal etc was remarkable, and perhaps not to be repeated again

 

[Schneckerl]

Our media are embarrassing and I think that's what does it...as a lot of people take their impression from that. It wound Modric up enough that he had to take a swipe at the English media and I think it was a fair swipe.

Even the TV coverage is really bad. If you listened to the commentary and punditry on BBC for the Sweden game you would think we won 7-0 with the greatest display of football ever seen and that Sweden never got out of their own half. Where as on ITV they just straight up lie about England.

Our media also started harping on about Croatia being tired and basically wrote them off as a minnow team with stuff like "we'll never get a better chance to reach a final"...I think even Southgate said this. It is arrogant because it's completely dismissive of the opposition. Basically saying you will never play anyone as rubbish as Croatia in a semi final again...when in fact England had the weaker squad of the two.

Then you had the whole plotting an "easy" route to the final thing. From our point of view, yes it is easier than playing Brazil or France...but from an outside perspective, it's disrespectful to the teams we did play. Especially as we aren't good enough to be saying this or that team are easy.

...and looking at the comment from the Croatians you'd think they destoryed England 3-0, but it was 2-1 after extra time. They are way more arrogant than any of the English media have ever been.

 

[Camy89]

It's hardly our fault if the media get a bit excited though is it. After all most of the pundits are ex-England footballers. In each of England's games in the knockout stage we've been accused of arrogance due to our media and yet the quotes from the actual players and manager have shown the complete opposite. Full of humility and grace and knowing we are a good team trying our best.

Success at this tournament was set at making the quarterfinals. A realistic and honest appraisal of where we are as a team.

The players and manager have been very humble. I like the team, and it’s a very good team.

The thing that annoys non-English folks is the media. I know you can’t help English media getting excited and hyping things up - that is hardly a surprise, but the most annoying thing that they do every time is get ahead of themselves. There were articles about winning the entire thing and what honours the players might get etc, all before they’ve played Croatia!

You expect things like this, but the volume of it is unbearable.

 

[Alex99]

That's fair enough. I don't disagree with any of that. I also think we've definitely had an easier run than we might otherwise have expected to do. That's not to disrespect Colombia, Sweden or Croatia, who all earned their places too, but to be able to get all the way (potentially) to the final without having to play any of Brazil, Germany, France, Spain, Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal etc was remarkable, and perhaps not to be repeated again

Right, again with this bollocks (and what is this insistence on referring to Italy and Netherlands, who are both objectively a bit shit, and both failed to qualify directly because of Sweden):

World Cup 2018 - Route to final
England - Colombia (16), Sweden (24), Croatia (20)
Croatia - Denmark (12), Russia (65), England (12)

World Cup 2014 - Route to semi-final
Netherlands - Mexico (20), Costa Rica (28)
Argentina - Switzerland (6), Belgium (11)
Brazil - Chile (14), Colombia (8)

World Cup 2010 - Route to semi-final
Uruguay - South Korea (47), Ghana (32)

World Cup 2006 - Route to semi-final
Italy - Australia (42), Ukraine (45)

World Cup 2002 - Route to final
Germany - Paraguay (18), USA (13), South Korea (40)
Brazil - Belgium (23), England (12), Turkey (22)

World Cup 2002 - Route to semi-final
Turkey - Japan (32), Senegal (42)

World Cup 1998 - Route to final
Brazil - Chile (9), Denmark (27), Netherlands (25)

World Cup 1994 - Route to final
Italy - Nigeria (11), Spain (Spain), Bulgaria (29)

World Cup 1994 - Route to semi-final
Sweden - Saudi Arabia (34), Romania (7)

England's draw was favourable than the other half, and both England and Croatia certainly benefited from tournament favourites Spain and Germany not showing up and ending up in their way, but when both sides were shit, one side of the draw can open up.

You can't seriously tell me that England's and Croatia's route to the final/semi-final stands out among the above. Sure, some of them are more difficult, but others are definitely easier.

It's a complete myth that this World Cup has presented an unprecedentedly easy draw. Ultimately, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Argentina, Spain and Portugal don't get byes through rounds because of who they are, and if other teams have knocked them out, then those teams have proven themselves better, at least for that brief moment (Netherlands especially have been shit for like 4 years btw).

 

[Revan]

Our media are embarrassing and I think that's what does it...as a lot of people take their impression from that. It wound Modric up enough that he had to take a swipe at the English media and I think it was a fair swipe.

Even the TV coverage is really bad. If you listened to the commentary and punditry on BBC for the Sweden game you would think we won 7-0 with the greatest display of football ever seen and that Sweden never got out of their own half. Where as on ITV they just straight up lie about England.

Our media also started harping on about Croatia being tired and basically wrote them off as a minnow team with stuff like "we'll never get a better chance to reach a final"...I think even Southgate said this. It is arrogant because it's completely dismissive of the opposition. Basically saying you will never play anyone as rubbish as Croatia in a semi final again...when in fact England had the weaker squad of the two.

Then you had the whole plotting an "easy" route to the final thing. From our point of view, yes it is easier than playing Brazil or France...but from an outside perspective, it's disrespectful to the teams we did play. Especially as we aren't good enough to be saying this or that team are easy.

Pretty much this.

 

[Schneckerl]

Right, again with this bollocks (and what is this insistence on referring to Italy and Netherlands, who are both objectively a bit shit, and both failed to qualify directly because of Sweden):

World Cup 2018 - Route to final
England - Colombia (16), Sweden (24), Croatia (20)
Croatia - Denmark (12), Russia (65), England (12)

World Cup 2014 - Route to semi-final
Netherlands - Mexico (20), Costa Rica (28)
Argentina - Switzerland (6), Belgium (11)
Brazil - Chile (14), Colombia (8)

World Cup 2010 - Route to semi-final
Uruguay - South Korea (47), Ghana (32)

World Cup 2006 - Route to semi-final
Italy - Australia (42), Ukraine (45)

World Cup 2002 - Route to final
Germany - Paraguay (18), USA (13), South Korea (40)
Brazil - Belgium (23), England (12), Turkey (22)

World Cup 2002 - Route to semi-final
Turkey - Japan (32), Senegal (42)

World Cup 1998 - Route to final
Brazil - Chile (9), Denmark (27), Netherlands (25)

World Cup 1994 - Route to final
Italy - Nigeria (11), Spain (Spain), Bulgaria (29)

World Cup 1994 - Route to semi-final
Sweden - Saudi Arabia (34), Romania (7)

Netherlands ranking 25th (or is that a typo?) in June 1998 is pretty much proof that you can trash the FIFA ranking no?

edit: Netherlands was indeed 25th with Zambia and South Africa at 23rd and 24th

 

[Lay]

Netherlands ranking 25th (or is that a typo?) in June 1998 is pretty much proof that you can trash the FIFA ranking no?

edit: Netherlands was indeed 25th with Zambia and South Africa at 23rd and 24th

Rankings back then were different to now though. Criteria was different so they mean absolutely nothing

 

[InspiRED]

That's fair enough. I don't disagree with any of that. I also think we've definitely had an easier run than we might otherwise have expected to do. That's not to disrespect Colombia, Sweden or Croatia, who all earned their places too, but to be able to get all the way (potentially) to the final without having to play any of Brazil, Germany, France, Spain, Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal etc was remarkable, and perhaps not to be repeated again

I can't watch England games on ITV without experiencing nuclear levels of cringe. Clive Tyldesley chirruping and growling about the England players like they are deities from Mount Olympus borne down to earth to smite down some poor mortal plodders. The way the commentary team talk about England when they have just about got their noses in front is really stupid. The delusion is off the charts. Hearing the media start ramping up before the semi final in anticipation of winning the whole thing was irritatingly naive. Asking "is it coming home?" with a knowing smile on their face etc

I totally understand why English media has the effect of making any non Englanders watching recoil in abject disgust, it is fecking nauseating.

The point of this thread was not to say 'England are the new Brazil 1970' and aren't given the credit coz they are English". It was aiming to give some more balanced opinion than the "England is a bang average side" who have had the most ridiculously piss easy route to the semi finals or final in the entire history of the world cup. Because that's not fair.

England were very good this tournament making the most of the talent at their disposal. It's been pointed out that there have been many similar routes to a WC semi final that entailed facing similar quality level of opposition. They played very well at times and it's the most impressed I've been by an England team for many years.

Croatia in the end were the better team and deserved winners, just about a level too high. They destroyed us in midfield in the second half and that's why it was our players running on empty by the end. But England dominated the first half and could have conceivably gone a couple of goals up easily enough.

I wouldn't have given us a prayer against France before the tournament. I thought there were some teams that are about 2 levels above what England are even capable of this world cup. Belgium, France, Brazil. Croatia had the better squad and their level is also above us, but not by the degree some people here would have you believe where they are talking about it like yesterday's game like it was 8-0. It was a tight game which Croatia grew into, dominated and deservedly won. That doesn't make England shite. They were very good, but not good enough and certainly not excellent.

It's like there is no room for shades of grey in some people's opinion. It's amazing like Brazil or utter shite and garbage.

It's interesting that this thread has drifted off again to the English media and their coverage, it's almost like it influences people's opinions of how good England are or something...

 

[Alex99]

Rankings back then were different to now though. Criteria was different so they mean absolutely nothing

They're still pretty useless at the moment, with Switzerland and Poland both notoriously gaming the system for higher rankings. They aren't the only teams though. I just included them because they give at least a bit of perspective. It's always better to compare within a confederation because at least then you should get more of an idea of where they're comparatively ranked.

The initial rankings from 93 to 98 were shocking. 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw in any fifa recognised match. In 98 they devised a system to score points based on the relative strengths of the teams involved in a match. They updated it slightly again in 99, then again in 2006, where they cut the period from 8 years down to 4. Rankings from 98 through to now should be fairly steady though because the system didn't change too much over that period, other than the number of years being taken into account.

They're actually updating it again after the world cup to try and put a stop to the system gaming that's gone on, moving to an Elo system.

 

[Infra-red]

Spoiler

Right, again with this bollocks (and what is this insistence on referring to Italy and Netherlands, who are both objectively a bit shit, and both failed to qualify directly because of Sweden):

World Cup 2018 - Route to final
England - Colombia (16), Sweden (24), Croatia (20)
Croatia - Denmark (12), Russia (65), England (12)

World Cup 2014 - Route to semi-final
Netherlands - Mexico (20), Costa Rica (28)
Argentina - Switzerland (6), Belgium (11)
Brazil - Chile (14), Colombia (8)

World Cup 2010 - Route to semi-final
Uruguay - South Korea (47), Ghana (32)

World Cup 2006 - Route to semi-final
Italy - Australia (42), Ukraine (45)

World Cup 2002 - Route to final
Germany - Paraguay (18), USA (13), South Korea (40)
Brazil - Belgium (23), England (12), Turkey (22)

World Cup 2002 - Route to semi-final
Turkey - Japan (32), Senegal (42)

World Cup 1998 - Route to final
Brazil - Chile (9), Denmark (27), Netherlands (25)

World Cup 1994 - Route to final
Italy - Nigeria (11), Spain (Spain), Bulgaria (29)

World Cup 1994 - Route to semi-final
Sweden - Saudi Arabia (34), Romania (7)

England's draw was favourable than the other half, and both England and Croatia certainly benefited from tournament favourites Spain and Germany not showing up and ending up in their way, but when both sides were shit, one side of the draw can open up.

You can't seriously tell me that England's and Croatia's route to the final/semi-final stands out among the above. Sure, some of them are more difficult, but others are definitely easier.

It's a complete myth that this World Cup has presented an unprecedentedly easy draw. Ultimately, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Argentina, Spain and Portugal don't get byes through rounds because of who they are, and if other teams have knocked them out, then those teams have proven themselves better, at least for that brief moment (Netherlands especially have been shit for like 4 years btw).

How many of our runs to the final have been easier? Look at our knockout phase record going back to '86.

1986 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Argentina
1990 WC: Semi finals - lost to W. Germany
1996 Euros: Semi finals - lost to Germany
1998 WC: R16 - lost to Argentina
2002 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Brazil
2004 Euros: Quarter finals - lost to Portugal
2006 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Portugal
2010 WC: R16 - lost to Germany
2012 Euros: Quarter finals - lost to Italy
2016 Euros: R16 - lost to Iceland (would have faced France next and Germany after that)

We haven't often had an easier group of opponents to face in the knockout stages than we did this summer. I think it's a big opportunity missed, an opportunity we might not get again for a while.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

They're actually updating it again after the world cup to try and put a stop to the system gaming that's gone on, moving to an Elo system.

 

[simplyared]

Hendo just passes sideways/backwards and mis places most long balls forward.

Very poor.

CM is nowhere near good enough at an elite level

You may have a point with Henderson. Just me trying to find something that probably isn't there.

 

[Alex99]

How many of our runs to the final have been easier? Look at our knockout phase record going back to '86.

1986 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Argentina
1990 WC: Semi finals - lost to W. Germany
1996 Euros: Semi finals - lost to Germany
1998 WC: R16 - lost to Argentina
2002 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Brazil
2004 Euros: Quarter finals - lost to Portugal
2006 WC: Quarter finals - lost to Portugal
2010 WC: R16 - lost to Germany
2012 Euros: Quarter finals - lost to Italy
2016 Euros: R16 - lost to Iceland (would have faced France next and Germany after that)

We haven't often had an easier group of opponents to face in the knockout stages than we did this summer. I think it's a big opportunity missed, an opportunity we might not get again for a while.

I don't really disagree there, but that's not the point people are making.

People have been comparing England/Croatia's run this year to the semi-final/final runs of every other team in the history of the World Cup, and reacting to it as if it is somehow out of the ordinary and unexpectedly easy. It's completely at odds with what history shows us, which is that, typically, at least one team will get a reasonably favourable run, and it's not even that uncommon for two or more to avoid the traditionally "top" teams because only two or three at most tend to be among the very best in the world at any given time.

The fact that so many, yourself included, keep bringing up Italy, who failed to qualify, and Netherlands, who as well as failing to qualify for this World Cup, couldn't even qualify for Euro 2016 when third would have sufficed, just proves to me that these aren't opinions formed from any evidence, but gut feelings of where that team ranks based on name alone.

There's no consensus on what makes a "top" team, other than reeling of the same list of names, which suggests to me that there are teams that a) will be considered a top team, regardless of how well they are performing, and b) there are teams that will never be considered a top team, regardless of how well they are performing. Beating and bettering these top teams doesn't get you on the list, so I'm not really sure what does.

It's strange that the general feeling is that England/the English media are arrogant for believing that England are among the top teams just because they're England (which hasn't even been remotely true this tournament cycle), while the people harbouring these feelings are adamant that some objectively poor and uninspiring sides remain top teams just because they're Netherlands/Italy/Germany/Portugal/Spain/Argentina (delete as applicable).

There's this weird dissonance going on where people are simultaneously stating their dislike for England due to the perceived arrogance of the English media/fans/team for thinking that England had a chance of getting to the World Cup final (and I think a key point here is that a great deal of it was hope), while also stating how easy their run was due to a lack of quality opposition. If the run was easy, then it's not particularly arrogant to think you stand a good chance of navigating your way through it. If they aren't expected to get through it, then it isn't an easy run, and while favourable, it's ultimately still a challenging set of fixtures for any team.

The most amusing part of this is the sheer number of people who have taken every opportunity to tell England fans that England are a poor, overrated side, that their run was easy, that they couldn't beat the first good team they came up against, and that they'd squandered the easiest run to the final in World Cup history, and that it was nothing but arrogance that had them believing they could get there, before turning around and saying that they have nothing against England.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

There's no consensus on what makes a "top" team, other than reeling of the same list of names, which suggests to me that there are teams that a) will be considered a top team, regardless of how well they are performing, and b) there are teams that will never be considered a top team, regardless of how well they are performing.

Generally true.

But:

a) A strong (relatively) team may under-perform for various reasons. "Nine times out of ten" and so forth. Maybe not nine but perhaps six or seven. The World Cup isn't a 38 match league contest.

b) People have eyes and brains. England haven't been overly impressive. They've done well considering. They're "likeable" (I don't quite get that myself - Southgate is certainly likeable, the team as such is fairly bland, I would say, which is an improvement over having Stevie G there and whatnot, but come on) but have very little to write home about in terms of anything eye-catching. They came up against a side with genuine world class quality in key departments - and lost. That isn't too far removed from the "narrative" you claim is false.

 

[Alex99]

Generally true.

But:

a) A strong (relatively) team may under-perform for various reasons. "Nine times out of ten" and so forth. Maybe not nine but perhaps six or seven. The World Cup isn't a 38 match league contest.

b) People have eyes and brains. England haven't been overly impressive. They've done well considering. They're "likeable" (I don't quite get that myself - Southgate is certainly likeable, the team as such is fairly bland, I would say, which is an improvement over having Stevie G there and whatnot, but come on) but have very little to write home about in terms of anything eye-catching. They came up against a side with genuine world class quality in key departments - and lost. That isn't too far removed from the "narrative" you claim is false.

The narrative is that England have had a markedly easy run compared to those of previous World Cups. This isn't true. The narrative has also been that every team England faced has been an easy opponent. This also isn't true.

 

[mancan92]

The narrative is that England have had a markedly easy run compared to those of previous World Cups. This isn't true. The narrative has also been that every team England faced has been an easy opponent. This also isn't true.

In relative terms it is true. We would of had our first real test against Columbia but they lost their best player so that is no longer a match vs a good team even then we got taken to penalties. Croatia was the first "good" team we faced and looked outclassed. The narrative is completely correct. It was a fun ride while it lasted though.

This is the truth without being pedantic about it. Relative terms of good. The teams we beat weren't up to that standard.

 

[Buchan]

I don’t understand why some English fans are so defensive about the easy route to the final they had. As a football fan, I absolutely want to easiest route possible to finals in every competition we enter. I couldn’t give two hoots what people say about United drawing Peterborough, Plymouth, Wycombe and Doncaster to reach an FA Cup semi-final. The fact that people here are still trying to justify how difficult the route England had is leading non-English posters to ridicule you. I genuinely don’t see why this is so important to you (‘you’ in a general sense).

 

[André Dominguez]

I don’t understand why some English fans are so defensive about the easy route to the final they had. As a football fan, I absolutely want to easiest route possible to finals in every competition we enter. I couldn’t give two hoots what people say about United drawing Peterborough, Plymouth, Wycombe and Doncaster to reach an FA Cup semi-final. The fact that people here are still trying to justify how difficult the route England had is leading non-English posters to ridicule you. I genuinely don’t see why this is so important to you (‘you’ in a general sense).

Even managers want it that way, even if they don't admit it. Look at Nadal at Wimbledon: he clearly said he was happy with the draw because he only would face Federer at the final, and would prefer if he got eliminated because Federer is very strong in that surface (as a note: Fedex is coming home).

So why is this a wrong thing to admit in football?

 

[Alex99]

In relative terms it is true. We would of had our first real test against Columbia but they lost their best player so that is no longer a match vs a good team even then we got taken to penalties. Croatia was the first "good" team we faced and looked outclassed. The narrative is completely correct. It was a fun ride while it lasted though.

This is the truth without being pedantic about it. Relative terms of good. The teams we beat weren't up to that standard.

Utter nonsense that one player was the difference between Colombia being a real test and no longer being a good team. They weren't as good as they might have been, but they were still good.

I don’t understand why some English fans are so defensive about the easy route to the final they had. As a football fan, I absolutely want to easiest route possible to finals in every competition we enter. I couldn’t give two hoots what people say about United drawing Peterborough, Plymouth, Wycombe and Doncaster to reach an FA Cup semi-final. The fact that people here are still trying to justify how difficult the route England had is leading non-English posters to ridicule you. I genuinely don’t see why this is so important to you (‘you’ in a general sense).

We're not defensive about the route. The route was favourable. I don't know how many times we have to say that before it actually clicks with you that we know it could have been harder. The route wasn't easy though, because no route to a World Cup semi-final is easy, as every team is there on merit. The route was also no easier than many we've seen throughout World Cup history, which is completely at odd with what people are saying about.

There's no attempts to justify anything, that's just what you're reading into it. What I, and a few others are doing, is providing a different perspective on things, and in all honesty, it seems to be a perspective based on actual information and not pure gut-feeling.

I certainly don't care what teams England played to reach the semi-final. I'm disappointed about the result Wednesday night, and will happily admit that we were beaten by a better team, and probably the first team better than us that we faced in a must-win situation. At the end of the day though, a team that I expected nothing of made me excited about the England football team for the first time in a decade plus, and I'm looking forward to watching them again. I think there's reason to have some hope that we can do ourselves proud in the next Euros if we can keep this feeling going.

I don't think anyone is making out that England's route was among the more difficult. The fact that you still think it's about that shows you've not really understood where we're coming from. People want something to ridicule England for, and they'll find it whatever we do as fans. We hope we'll beat Colombia and Sweden, and we're mocked for being arrogant. We beat Colombia and Sweden and are enthusiastic about our chances going forward because why wouldn't you be in a semi-final, and we're mocked for celebrating an easy run. We can't win, and we're perhaps a bit defensive about that, but ultimately, we're guaranteed at least 4th in a World Cup, which will be the best performance in one I've ever seen, and may well ever see. It's been fecking great.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Utter nonsense that one player was the difference between Colombia being a real test and no longer being a good team. They weren't as good as they might have been, but they were still good.



We're not defensive about the route. The route was favourable. I don't know how many times we have to say that before it actually clicks with you that we know it could have been harder. The route wasn't easy though, because no route to a World Cup semi-final is easy, as every team is there on merit. The route was also no easier than many we've seen throughout World Cup history, which is completely at odd with what people are saying about.

There's no attempts to justify anything, that's just what you're reading into it. What I, and a few others are doing, is providing a different perspective on things, and in all honesty, it seems to be a perspective based on actual information and not pure gut-feeling.

I certainly don't care what teams England played to reach the semi-final. I'm disappointed about the result Wednesday night, and will happily admit that we were beaten by a better team, and probably the first team better than us that we faced in a must-win situation. At the end of the day though, a team that I expected nothing of made me excited about the England football team for the first time in a decade plus, and I'm looking forward to watching them again. I think there's reason to have some hope that we can do ourselves proud in the next Euros if we can keep this feeling going.

I don't think anyone is making out that England's route was among the more difficult. The fact that you still think it's about that shows you've not really understood where we're coming from. People want something to ridicule England for, and they'll find it whatever we do as fans. We hope we'll beat Colombia and Sweden, and we're mocked for being arrogant. We beat Colombia and Sweden and are enthusiastic about our chances going forward because why wouldn't you be in a semi-final, and we're mocked for celebrating an easy run. We can't win, and we're perhaps a bit defensive about that, but ultimately, we're guaranteed at least 4th in a World Cup, which will be the best performance in one I've ever seen, and may well ever see. It's been fecking great.

Without writing a million words, that route was the easiest you’re gonna get it in the worldcup for a long time, as your history shows.
That’s why it was such big news about you potentially reaching a final, the route there!

Can’t believe you’re still defending it to be honest

 

[The Bloody-Nine]

'Narrative'.

They did have it easy. You can tell this by opening your eyes.

 

[nore1975]

I don't think anyone foresaw England getting to the semi finals. England played 6 games. Scored 3 goals from open play with one fortuitous. Southgate definitely got England well organized and maximized the possibilities from set plays.

England were good off the ball but poor on the ball. You can discount Tunisia and Panama as serious opposition. That's 1/3 of the games England played. Belgium put out a second string and beat England's equivalent. That's 1/2 of the six games accounted for.

Colombia were missing their best player and only started playing in the last 30 minutes of normal time. It took penalties to overcome them. Sweden were game but poor and it took three quality saves from Pickford to keep England ahead. This brings us to the semi final. Great start with another set piece. Kane had one good chance from open play but that's all I remember England creating in 120 minutes of play. Croatia created four chances from open play scoring two, hitting the post and Pickford pulled off a fine save.

The narrative from the English media was shocking. Football's coming home, never a better chance to reach the final, Gareth has transformed England, Croatia will be bushed, etc.

 

[Alex99]

Without writing a million words, that route was the easiest you’re gonna get it in the worldcup for a long time, as your history shows.
That’s why it was such big news about you potentially reaching a final, the route there!

Can’t believe you’re still defending it to be honest

No one has compared it to England's previous routes until now, when the myth about it being the absolute easiest route ever in a World Cup was dispelled by 5 minutes on Google. Again, I understand it was a favourable route, and probably England's easiest for a long while, however, they fell short against a very good Croatia side in a World Cup semi-final, after beating decent Colombia and Sweden sides to get there. I'm disappointed we couldn't go all the way, but I think we've done really well.

I'm not defending the route. I'm correcting people when they say it was the easiest ever, that somehow a shit Netherlands team would have been a bigger challenge than Colombia, Sweden or Croatia, and pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming England fans are arrogant for hoping they'd get far, while simultaneously saying all of England's opponents are shit.

I literally said all of that in the post you quoted. Did you actually read it?

I don't think anyone foresaw England getting to the semi finals. England played 6 games. Scored 3 goals from open play with one fortuitous. Southgate definitely got England well organized and maximized the possibilities from set plays.

England were good off the ball but poor on the ball. You can discount Tunisia and Panama as serious opposition. That's 1/3 of the games England played. Belgium put out a second string and beat England's equivalent. That's 1/2 of the six games accounted for.

Colombia were missing their best player and only started playing in the last 30 minutes of normal time. It took penalties to overcome them. Sweden were game but poor and it took three quality saves from Pickford to keep England ahead. This brings us to the semi final. Great start with another set piece. Kane had one good chance from open play but that's all I remember England creating in 120 minutes of play. Croatia created four chances from open play scoring two, hitting the post and Pickford pulled off a fine save.

The narrative from the English media was shocking. Football's coming home, never a better chance to reach the final, Gareth has transformed England, Croatia will be bushed, etc.

Wait, was there never a better a chance to reach the final, or were Croatia actually formidable opposition?

Also, why are set-piece goals discredited? To me, it looks like Southgate identified the lack of any real creative spark available to him, so adapted the tactics to play to England's strengths. That meant playing three pacy players behind Kane, who on their day, can be lethal, to cause havoc and win deep free-kicks and corners, from which England would have great scoring opportunities, many of which they capitalised on.

There was a reliance that at some point one of Alli, Sterling and Lingard would have a game with some end product, and unfortunately that didn't happen, and we really needed it to in the semi-final because Kane wasn't on top form. There was always the risk that England would fall short because of this tactic, and that's what happened in the semi-final. Kane wasted two chances in one move, mis-timed a jump when he'd have had a free header a few yards out, and Stones had one cleared off the line. England had enough chances to score 3 or 4 more, but didn't take them, and paid the price.

 

[Buchan]

I don't think anyone foresaw England getting to the semi finals. England played 6 games. Scored 3 goals from open play with one fortuitous. Southgate definitely got England well organized and maximized the possibilities from set plays.

England were good off the ball but poor on the ball. You can discount Tunisia and Panama as serious opposition. That's 1/3 of the games England played. Belgium put out a second string and beat England's equivalent. That's 1/2 of the six games accounted for.

Colombia were missing their best player and only started playing in the last 30 minutes of normal time. It took penalties to overcome them. Sweden were game but poor and it took three quality saves from Pickford to keep England ahead. This brings us to the semi final. Great start with another set piece. Kane had one good chance from open play but that's all I remember England creating in 120 minutes of play. Croatia created four chances from open play scoring two, hitting the post and Pickford pulled off a fine save.

The narrative from the English media was shocking. Football's coming home, never a better chance to reach the final, Gareth has transformed England, Croatia will be bushed, etc.

Nail, meet Head.

Precisely where a lot of non-biased observers stand. Good post.

 

[Zlatan 7]

No one has compared it to England's previous routes until now, when the myth about it being the absolute easiest route ever in a World Cup was dispelled by 5 minutes on Google. Again, I understand it was a favourable route, and probably England's easiest for a long while, however, they fell short against a very good Croatia side in a World Cup semi-final, after beating decent Colombia and Sweden sides to get there. I'm disappointed we couldn't go all the way, but I think we've done really well.

I'm not defending the route. I'm correcting people when they say it was the easiest ever, that somehow a shit Netherlands team would have been a bigger challenge than Colombia, Sweden or Croatia, and pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming England fans are arrogant for hoping they'd get far, while simultaneously saying all of England's opponents are shit.

I literally said all of that in the post you quoted. Did you actually read it?



Wait, was there never a better a chance to reach the final, or were Croatia actually formidable opposition?

Also, why are set-piece goals discredited? To me, it looks like Southgate identified the lack of any real creative spark available to him, so adapted the tactics to play to England's strengths. That meant playing three pacy players behind Kane, who on their day, can be lethal, to cause havoc and win deep free-kicks and corners, from which England would have great scoring opportunities, many of which they capitalised on.

There was a reliance that at some point one of Alli, Sterling and Lingard would have a game with some end product, and unfortunately that didn't happen, and we really needed it to in the semi-final because Kane wasn't on top form. There was always the risk that England would fall short because of this tactic, and that's what happened in the semi-final. Kane wasted two chances in one move, mis-timed a jump when he'd have had a free header a few yards out, and Stones had one cleared off the line. England had enough chances to score 3 or 4 more, but didn't take them, and paid the price.

I did read it yes. Maybe people should start writing England’s easiest route ever instead of easiest route ever just so you’re clear and understand what they mean.

And as had been said multiple times through the thread, Sweden knocked Germany out so they’re better (even though they didn’t knock them out), it doesn’t work like that, Germany are clearly a better side with better players than Sweden even if Sweden did get further than them. I’d struggle to believe any English man who would have preferred to face Germany over Sweden in this World Cup just because Sweden ‘knocked’ Germany out.

The thread has gone pedantic and people picking up on missed words or added words. Basically, this was England’s easiest run to get to a World Cup final in their history, yes they beat who were put in front of them and fairplay for that but they literally had teams on their level or below through the whole tournament, that’s a lucky set of circumstances and obviously makes it an easier route, so yea, they had it easy.