Why is this current England team so much better than the failed ‘Golden Generation’?

All the other managers picked teams based on reputation. It was about cramming as many names into a team as possible. Disjointed and lacking in fight when the chips were down, I’m sure they were all quick to blame each other when things didn’t pan out. I said in the Rashford thread most managers would have crammed him in there instead of Saka. That was a good call by Southgate. Sticking with Sterling even though he was coming off an average season... He wants workrate and then you can use your skill to get it over the line. It’s pragmatic.

Back then If Rooney didn’t pull it out of the bag (and let’s face it he was poor in tournaments for England) then you had very little else in the way of a game plan. This is a much better mix with danger all across the front and from Shaw. Set pieces are much better. It also seems like a happier more together group in general.
 
thepolice123 said:
You seriously think they would have beaten Germany? You are talking about a team that has choked every single time they come up against a big team in the knockout stages. And games against Denmark were the classic banana skin for the GG.
Click to expand...
The only time the golden generation played Denmark in a major tournament they twatted them 3-0 in the second round in 2002. And that was a decent Denmark team that defeated reigning champions France in the previous game.
 
Capello got something out of the Golden Generation in a cohesive way in the 2010 quali's, but it was all a ploy and ended up being massively reliant on Rooney. As was the setup in 2006, and somehow 2004... which is odd because that's not how they set out to be in 04, but because of how good they looked, it just became the norm to rely on him and he was done by the time he got to a tournament kinda fit again - 2012.... not that 2012 is in any way part of the Golden Generation run of tournaments. I'd call 2012-14-16 transition tournaments.

2002 they lost to Brazil... by an ultra fluke goal... and everyone loves that Brazil too. Hardly bad memories outside of the howler.

Gist of it? Reliance on one player who was injured - despite having a wealth of talent considered 'Golden'.
 
Last edited:
Apart from it being a more harmonious team, and the product of a longer term plan than typical, a massive element is quality on the ball - it has quite a few more technical "ball players" this team than the England sides of old
 
Commentary said:
I think that we can start to ask that question if England beat Italy on Sunday.

The fact of the matter is that England had a fairly easy path in the world Cup and a super easy path at the Euros.

Until they beat Italy I will not be convinced...I'm still not sold on Southgate either.
Click to expand...
thats stupid. So only one victory counts? you realise the Czechs beat Holland and the likes of Spain struggled with Switzerland? Southgate done near perfect so far. everyone 2nd guessing him
 
The answer is simple, this squad is a 'team' and the golden generation wasn't, players from the golden generation even admitted that (or Rio did), they couldn't put club rivarly to one side to be a 'team'.

But I think the depth of the current England squad is better, you saw what happened when Beckham/Rooney broke their foot before a World Cup/Euro, England was screwed, we had Uri Geller at the front of the newspaper and a picture Rooney and Beckhams foot him telling everyone to touch it in a voodoo attempt for it magically heal, now we have options everywhere, it doesn't matter if a Trent Alexander Arnold gets injured or one of the best young talents in the world football pulls out (Mason Greenwood) because we have quality and 'just as good' options to replace them.

Also you can't compare each generation right now, the golden generation had their time (so we know how good they was individually looking back on the careers), this current England team many of these players are in their teens/early 20's and at the start of the careers, some of these players may go up 2 more levels yet, but what i will say is some of these players are at the start of their careers and already Premier League winners/Champions League winners and playing in the European final on Sunday, it's too early to say but i think some of these players could go on to surpass the likes of Scholes/Beckham/Gerrard/Lampard/Owen/Rooney in terms of footballing legacy and how they are remembered in the game.
 
Last edited:
Can't believe i read , a couple of pages back, that this England 2021 could beat Brazil 2002.

I guess beating 10 men Denmark thanks to a dodgy penalty provokes this :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Last edited:
Alex99 said:
This tournament, Croatia and Germany are comparable sides in terms of talent available, I said as much in that post.

Brazil were knocked out of the Copa in 2001 by Honduras in the quarter finals, then laboured their way to the World Cup in 2002 on the back of a kind run and some individual brilliance. They weren't that great.
Click to expand...

Brazil didn't bring Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos,Rivaldo to Copa América 2001.

Why are you not mentioning this?
 
They have a sense of unity and togetherness mainly due to modern technology/social media which just wasn’t that readily available at all in comparison.

...back in the golden generation, there was very little players could do to connect with other international teammates outside of their own club. The rivalries were more of cult followings and there was bitterness which most the players couldn’t look past when together for together. That has an effect on the chemistry on the field and overall atmosphere, having hostilities with certain such teammates.

due to networking, as we all see it’s a lot easier for players to take a step back and get over club level hurdles and simply come together as a collective whilst putting aside their differences. It makes things a lot easier when everyone’s on the same page, pulling in the same direction. It’s less the “golden generation” but more so the generation they were in vs. the one/world the current players are in. United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Tottenham etc. Players from all different clubs with conflicting rivalries are able to put an arm around one another and just be buddies. Back in the day, if you had a bitter taste in your mouth from an incident at club level with certain players - more likely than not you weren’t ever able to talk it over and make amends.


I honestly do believe that truly is all there is to it.
 
This team has more talent to choose from, which makes competition for a place in the 11 harder. When you have the likes of Grelish, sancho, fode, Rashford, awb, Alexander Arnold and so on, not guaranteed starters, it just shows the type of quality we have. There has not been a better selective group of talent in English history than what we see now.
 
Stacks said:
thats stupid. So only one victory counts? you realise the Czechs beat Holland and the likes of Spain struggled with Switzerland? Southgate done near perfect so far. everyone 2nd guessing him
Click to expand...

The Dutch team is not the team of old, and all the prime contenders were in the other grouping.

Germany is on the decline and the Ukraine and Denmark are not top contenders. Southgate has yet to have real success against a top side. Let's see how he does against Italy.

If he England wins the cup, I'll be a Southgate convert.
 
Because they score more goals, defend better, and don’t wilt under pressure.
 
The quality of the squad is miles better for this crop. And credit needs to go to Southgate for playing the double pivot (as boring as it maybe) and protecting the defence.

The golden gen would have benefited a lot if they’ve played with an anchor a lot more. Hargreaves and Carrick should have played bigger roles. Gareth Barry added quite a bit of balance too tbh.
 
A good team will always beat a team of good players...that is it in a nutshell.
 
The chemistry in this squad is much better in years past. Also there is more options off the bench and the team is more solid not relying on individual ability
 
Simply more talented and not overrated like the golden Generation. Also better tactically and physically.

They also can keep the ball better
 
Tomuś said:
I read it was due to some covid quarantine shit for the incomers.
Click to expand...

It was but the UK in this case is a very international country because of London mostly so we have large populations of foreign nationals from many countries. I think there are 30000 Danes here so the Danish FA was able to get a decent allocation in the end. There are 600000 Italians in the UK and 1000 are being allowed in from Italy. Italy has had a significant migrant population settled here for about 150 years as well. There are many prominent English/Italians in English life like Marco Pierre-White, Anthony Minghella, Ant Crolla, Chris Rea and Tony Iommi. Point being, Italy should have plenty of support on Sunday, more than the Danes.

I suppose the other point is that allocations to countries from FIFA in the World Cup are actually a lot smaller than people realise so in strictly speaking the Danish allocation against England was bigger than the English allocation against Croatia in 2018.
 
Last edited:
The standard of international football just seems to have declined massively in the last few years. When England were at their peak, the likes of Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina, Spain had genuine superstars littered throughout their squads. Now, I look at all those teams and think they’re very beatable!
 
Alex99 said:
There's a debate to be had there. I think this England team would beat both Brazil 2002 and Portugal 2004.

You decided to shift the goalposts to "better" from "comparable" because whatever you were trying to get at by asking about comparable teams was obviously negated by my first response to you. I just chose not to accept the new line of argument.

What is your point?
Click to expand...
This England aren’t going to live with Brazil 2002. They had 6 world class players, 5 of whom were indisputable all-time legends. That’s Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Cafu and Roberto Carlos who are all streets ahead of any current English player. And tactically it completely clicked for them when they switched to 3-4-2-1. It afforded them a level of defensive cover they didn’t have in 1998. It freed up their wing-backs to play a devastating box-to-box game and gave their front three enough freedom to run riot.
 
Better luck with draws and injuries, superior depth of talent where it matters the most(forwards/strikers)
 
Carrick and Scholes should have played with lampard or gerrard behind Rooney not both of them.

Southgate has had the balls to drop players for the balance of the team.

If Foden and Mount were around in that time, Sven and Fabio would have played them as the midfield two behind Rooney and to be honest it would probably work better than Gerrard and Lampard as they take care of the ball better.

If Southgate had that team I feel only one of them would play but behind Rooney up front.
 
Gio said:
This England aren’t going to live with Brazil 2002. They had 6 world class players, 5 of whom were indisputable all-time legends. That’s Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Cafu and Roberto Carlos who are all streets ahead of any current English player. And tactically it completely clicked for them when they switched to 3-4-2-1. It afforded them a level of defensive cover they didn’t have in 1998. It freed up their wing-backs to play a devastating box-to-box game and gave their front three enough freedom to run riot.
Click to expand...

That Brazil attack had 3 x World Player of the Year in attack! They may have lacked in some areas but has any international side had that before?
 
Abraxas said:
I wouldn't say they are better. The golden generation tended to beat the types of sides we have faced so far. I think to compare them honestly then you also have to be brutally honest about the opposition. Even Germany we tend to look at through the lens of past achievement when it is one of the weakest German outfits we've seen. There is no point in ignoring this stuff and just looking at the result, so much of tournament football is a product of circumstance. However, circumstance has also put a fantastic Italian side in front of them in the final, so if they leap that particular hurdle you have to say this group are not just attaining a series of expected results but have something extra, at that point the assessment should change.

I'd say a key difference is the togetherness and spirit. I think all the players concerned with the golden generation would echo that. They are also setup less according to politics and more in line with exactly what the manager wants with players in their best positions. Basically I think the manager has a more malleable group than ones where the manager had all kinds of baggage to deal with.
Click to expand...

This English team would take the piss out of the golden generation, the golden generation were very dysfunctional.

The initiatives at youth level and youth coaching has had a pleasing effect. The technical levels of our players have increased dramatically.

Having players in our team like Foden, Mount, Grealish, Sterling, Sancho, saka who can actually beat players and have great dribbling skills was unthinkable 10 years ago and is very exciting. I mean we had joe Cole but he wasn’t really that exciting, Aaron Lennon, David beckham, walcott, I mean Rooney was ok but it wasn’t his forte.
 
caid said:
Been a long time if ever with Ronaldo and Messi having a monopoly on that award.
Click to expand...

Even if those two didn't exist, hardly any non-english person would say Luke Shaw,Declan Rice,or Sterling deserve a Ballon D'or.

I mean Declan Rice isn't even better than Kevin de Bruyne, and the belgian himself is at least 3 tiers below Rivaldo, and Sterling isn't even the best player from Manchester City.

Even without the Cristiano-Messi monopoly, no player from the current England side would win a Balloon D'or.
 
Funnily enough brazil had 3 in 2006 with Kaka, Ronaldo and Ronaldinho. Award only started in 91 so none since.
 
Wolf1992 said:
Even if those two didn't exist, hardly any non-english person would say Luke Shaw,Declan Rice,or Sterling deserve a Ballon D'or.

I mean Declan Rice isn't even better than Kevin de Bruyne, and the belgian himself is at least 3 tiers below Rivaldo, and Sterling isn't even the best player from Manchester City.

Even without the Cristiano-Messi monopoly, no player from the current England side would win a Balloon D'or.
Click to expand...
This england team isn't a classic by any means. The golden generation was pretty shit though so its better than that.
I could see Kane winning one in some alternate universe where he left spurs a few years ago and Messi and Ronaldo didn't exist.
 
The longer termism of Southgate certainly helps.

The English team had better coaches on paper back then but they were never there for the long haul and so had far greater emphasis on winning the tournament they entered, this brought pressure upon the players which they couldn't handle but also an emphasis in individual games to over commit, chase things and ultimately make mistakes. Most England failures of that period were narrow losses from stupid errors or bad luck - in elite level football that's all it takes to go out.

I don't agree with those claiming the players weren't as good as this lot, we had some exceptional footballers back then almost all of whom would walk into this team. What we never managed to do was knit them together, most critically in midfield. We never got the balance right and as a result we never controlled games, even against inferior teams that we beat we'd often have less possession and less territory. I know lampard/Gerrard is something of a cliché but it was a very real issue that every manager shied away from to the teams detriment. They couldn't play together - simple as. Pick one or the other with a controller in behind and the team is transformed imo

It was a shame Hoddle was a mentalist as he was a real systems man and he had England playing well during his tenure I always felt with more time on his side he could've done something - not unlike Southgate his skills suited international football far better than club football
 
I want England to win but this team are getting way overhyped.

In the WC they didn't beat a decent team, found themselves in the Semi's against a half decent team, took the lead and still managed to get themselves knocked out.

In this Euros they have had home field advantage in every game, bar Ukraine, and won; although still managing to somehow draw against a poor Scotland side.

Only credible win in either competition was against Germany in the last 16. However, that was a Germany side who have a manager who has been done for about 3 years and a squad that has clear deficiencies.

The Southgate mania at the moment is also fairly bemusing. He is being hailed as some tactical genius but is a manager who bottled a WC semi and in his club career got Boro relegated, then kept them relegated. Only thing I give him any real credit for is his ability to avoid picking players for their names rather than thinking about balance first.

The Golden Generation were individually a better team. The issue there was that they were primarily given to Sven who was fairly craven towards the big players and their WAGs and seemed to treat the England managers position as a part time job that allowed him to milk in some serious cash.
 
Hasnt the current England team just been very lucky with the draw? Last world cup and this Euros they havent been defeating many 'major teams'. Italy will basically be the first test against a really good team.

Fairly certain the 'golden gen' in their prime would win against this team. Kane and Sterling vs Rio and Terry? Lampard/Gerrard vs Rice? I would put my money on the golden gen
 
caid said:
This england team isn't a classic by any means. The golden generation was pretty shit though so its better than that.
I could see Kane winning one in some alternate universe where he left spurs a few years ago and Messi and Ronaldo didn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that didn't happen, so no Ballon D'or for Kane.

Thing is nobody in this England team would win a Ballon D'or if Cristiano and Messi didn't exist ...none of them has been in the podium anyway.

I think the golden generation failed, but this "these new lads are so superior" it's ridiculous.... can't believe this is all because of beating 10 men Denmark with a dodgy penalty.
 
Wolf1992 said:
Brazil didn't bring Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos,Rivaldo to Copa América 2001.

Why are you not mentioning this?
Click to expand...

I know they didn't.

My entire point was that their squad was not as strong as people remember, and outside of that group, there was a massive drop in quality. That group not featuring in a tournament and Brazil performing woefully is entirely my point.

Even in that group, Rivaldo was winding down, and Ronaldinho hadn't got started.

Ronaldo dragged them to that World Cup, and even he was past his explosive best.

Gio said:
This England aren’t going to live with Brazil 2002. They had 6 world class players, 5 of whom were indisputable all-time legends. That’s Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Cafu and Roberto Carlos who are all streets ahead of any current English player. And tactically it completely clicked for them when they switched to 3-4-2-1. It afforded them a level of defensive cover they didn’t have in 1998. It freed up their wing-backs to play a devastating box-to-box game and gave their front three enough freedom to run riot.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, run riot. I remember them running riot when they *checks notes* beat a poor Belgium side by just two goals, needed a goalkeeping error to beat England by one goal, and only managed to beat Turkey by one goal (in two matches). Turning over shite Costa Rica and China sides hardly constitutes "running riot".

2002 Rivaldo wasn't world class, and neither was 2002 Ronaldinho. It's exactly this sort of revisionist shite that I'm on about.
 
GMoore23 said:
Christ this made me laugh :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Spain had one of the most dominant International sides ever seen around this time and Carrick, although a very good player, wouldn't have got a sniff.

Their Midfield consisted of players like
Alonso
Busquets
Xavi
Fabregas
Cazorla
Iniesta
Silva
Click to expand...

Think you need to calm down mate, Carrick was a Busquets style footballer, calm on the ball, keeps things moving.

I didn't say he'd be ahead of those players, what I meant was Spain pick players that compliment eachother. Fabregas sat on the bench for years whilst the likes of Senna and others started ahead of him. England managers insisted on playing Gerrard and Lampard together, if they'd have chosen one with Carrick we'd have done far better.
 
Alex99 said:
I know they didn't.

My entire point was that their squad was not as strong as people remember, and outside of that group, there was a massive drop in quality. That group not featuring in a tournament and Brazil performing woefully is entirely my point.

Even in that group, Rivaldo was winding down, and Ronaldinho hadn't got started.

Ronaldo dragged them to that World Cup, and even he was past his explosive best.



Ah yes, run riot. I remember them running riot when they *checks notes* beat a poor Belgium side by just two goals, needed a goalkeeping error to beat England by one goal, and only managed to beat Turkey by one goal (in two matches). Turning over shite Costa Rica and China sides hardly constitutes "running riot".

2002 Rivaldo wasn't world class, and neither was 2002 Ronaldinho. It's exactly this sort of revisionist shite that I'm on about.
Click to expand...

Ronaldinho was already rated in 2002, has been since he was playing at PSG.

I wanna see the future Ballons D'or that Denmark,Colombia,Sweden, or Ukraine (teams that England beated in knockout stage) will produce, since according to the logic of some in here, beating a 10 Denmark team with a dodgy penalty it's as hard as beating a team that has Ronaldo,Rivaldo, Ronaldinho,Cafu, and Roberto Carlos.

Cant wait to see the current ukrainian forwards or swedish midfielders to win a Ballon D'or, since they are sooooo good.
 
Wolf1992 said:
Ronaldinho was already rated in 2002, has been since he was playing at PSG.

I wanna see the future Ballons D'or that Denmark,Colombia,Sweden, or Ukraine (teams that England beated in knockout stage) will produce, since according to the logic of some in here, beating a 10 Denmark team with a dodgy penalty it's as hard as beating a team that has Ronaldo,Rivaldo, Ronaldinho,Cafu, and Roberto Carlos.

Cant wait to see the current ukrainian forwards or swedish midfielders to win a Ballon D'or, since they are sooooo good.
Click to expand...

Literally no one has said Denmark, Ukraine, Colombia or Sweden are as good, but you keep making your straw men.

Ronaldinho was an exciting young talent in 2002. He was still a year away from his move to Barca, where he made his name, two years away from world player of the year, and three years away from his ballon d'or.

I'm not saying he was shit, I'm saying he wasn't the finished article.
 
Devil81 said:
Think you need to calm down mate, Carrick was a Busquets style footballer, calm on the ball, keeps things moving.

I didn't say he'd be ahead of those players, what I meant was Spain pick players that compliment eachother. Fabregas sat on the bench for years whilst the likes of Senna and others started ahead of him. England managers insisted on playing Gerrard and Lampard together, if they'd have chosen one with Carrick we'd have done far better.
Click to expand...
You literally said he'd play every match which means he'd have a lot more caps than some of those players. A good player and all but he'd get nowhere near that squad. He wasn't even the best cm at United as Scholes was twice the player.
Do you remember how Barca dominated possesion against us back in those days. That was Spains midfield also and they absolutely dominated our midfield with Carrick and Scholes, thats how good they were.
 
Rivaldo was still great at the 2002 world cup. It wasn't until he moved to Milan after it and injuries started to wear him down too much that he notably declined.
 
NasirTimothy said:
More successful then
Click to expand...

Because they’ve gone up against weaker opposition.

2002 WC - England got knocked out by Brazil (golden generation) who won the WC

2004 Euros - England got knocked out via PK by Portugal (golden generation) host nation and finalist of the Euros

2006 WC - England again got knocked out by Portugal via PK who were eventually semi finalist and finished 4th in that WC

2008 Euros - Didn’t qualify

2010 WC - England got knocked by Germany (golden generation) and semi finalist + 3rd place finish at the WC

2012 Euro - England got knocked out via PK against Italy the finalist of that Euros

Current gen got knocked out by Iceland and Croatia and the most difficult opponent they faced in these 3 tournaments in the knock out rounds was Germany a team that is a shell out itself.
 
GMoore23 said:
You literally said he'd play every match which means he'd have a lot more caps than some of those players. A good player and all but he'd get nowhere near that squad. He wasn't even the best cm at United as Scholes was twice the player.
Do you remember how Barca dominated possesion against us back in those days. That was Spains midfield also and they absolutely dominated our midfield with Carrick and Scholes, thats how good they were.
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, reading back I see your point.

The point I was trying to make was the Spanish would start a player to complement another, a Carrick style player with a more attacking threat like Iniesta.

Something England didn't do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.