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

[FrankDrebin]

I accept the Golden Generation played against stronger sides and individuals and I'm also acknowledging this squad ,over the past two Tournaments, have had favourable draws yet I still wouldn't feel confident that the Golden Generation would've progressed in similar vain.
Something would've tripped them up along the way.

 

[RoyH1]

This squad is deeper than the Golden Generation. Good replacements for almost every position

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I think the old guard was overrated to be honest.

So do I

These are shallow arguments with little basis in common sense.

These are the players from that generation and how many times they were voted into the World team of the year by their fellow professional. Every pro player in the world gets a vote. There are 65000 registered pro players in the world.

John Terry - 5 times
Steven Gerrard - 3 times
Frank Lampard x 1
Rio Ferdinand x 1

This award only started in 2005.

Lampard and Gerrard finished in the top 3 of the Ballon D'or, as did Beckham and obviously the whole XI at Euro 2004 was hugely decorated at club level

Then you also have the fact that international tournaments throw out a lot of 'noise' rather than 'signal' when it comes to player performances. This is mostly because of how short the competition is and how marginal a lot of games are i.e if England reduced to 10 men shut out Portugal and get beaten on penalties, why is the legacy of players in the team that played well damaged because of poenalties missed by a couple of players?

Answer this, how many scouts judge players on international tournaments when it comes to recommending clubs to spend the big bucks on them?

It's actually regarded as folly among the scouting community to buy out of tournaments and by and large they look at club perofrmance for the measure of a player.

To follow your point to the logical conclusion, do you agree that Kimmich, Groeska and the new generation of failing German players at international level are overrated, or is this just a damnation that you'd only extend to English players?

 

[FrankDrebin]

The players we have now, due to years of great grass roots coaching, has now made our footballers far more adaptable.

 

[Sky1981]

You guys really are pushing your luck with all this thread

It's not over till the fat lady sings

 

[roonster09]

These are shallow arguments with little basis in common sense.

These are the players from that generation and how many times they were voted into the World team of the year by their fellow professional. Every pro player in the world gets a vote. There are 65000 registered pro players in the world.

John Terry - 5 times
Steven Gerrard - 3 times
Frank Lampard x 1
Rio Ferdinand x 1

This award only started in 2005.

Lampard and Gerrard finished in the top 3 of the Ballon D'or, as did Beckham and obviously the whole XI at Euro 2004 was hugely decorated at club level

Then you also have the fact that international tournaments throw out a lot of 'noise' rather than 'signal' when it comes to player performances. This is mostly because of how short the competition is and how marginal a lot of games are i.e if England reduced to 10 men shut out Portugal and get beaten on penalties, why is the legacy of players in the team that played well damaged because of poenalties missed by a couple of players?

Answer this, how many scouts judge players on international tournaments when it comes to recommending clubs to spend the big bucks on them?

It's actually regarded as folly among the scouting community to buy our of tournaments.

To follow your point to the logical conclusion, do you agree that Kimmich, Groeska and the new generation of failing German players at international level are overrated, or is this just a damnation that you'd only extend to English players?

Good post.

 

[mu4c_20le]

This squad is deeper than the Golden Generation. Good replacements for almost every position

Perhaps, but GG had world class players in every position though. If they'd clicked back then ... hoo boy

 

[Mike Smalling]

If all of the "golden generation" were playing and in their prime now, what would Southgate's starting XI look like?

Do you mean a combined team of the Golden Generation and current squad? If so, maybe something like this assuming he would stick with 4-2-3-1:

Pickford/James
Walker - Ferdinand - Terry - Cole
Scholes - Rice/Phillips
Sterling - Gerrard - Rooney
Kane​

It is of course harsh/impossible to leave out Beckham, Lampard and Owen. Perhaps he would pick Gerrard for the other pivot role and include Lampard behind Kane.

 

[duffer]

So I’d respectfully submit that the premise of the question should not be rejected. That team failed.

This England team are "so much better" than the golden generation. That's the premise of your question.

What makes you think they're "so much better? Because they got further in the competition?

Chelsea were European Champions in 2012. Was that Chelsea team "so much better' than the Chelsea team of 2005?

Getting further in a cup competition does not make you "so much better".

 

[Kylar Stern]

Might be a controversial opinion, but I think the current side are much better at passing and keeping the ball than the 'golden generation' which is huge at international level. Despite the individual quality the sides of the 00's and early '10s had, so many passages of play ended with them passing the ball off the pitch or saw them concede possession by hoofing the ball upfield to the opposition and putting themselves under pressure unnecessarily.

There was also a heavy reliance on individual moments of brilliance to win games, which is why many tournaments ended with us going out because of a Rooney injury or a Beckham red card or similar.

 

[FrankDrebin]

You guys really are pushing your luck with all this thread

It's not over till the fat lady sings

I think Italy will edge it, personally.

 

[caid]

I dont think the Golden Generation would have fared as well or better than this current England team. It'd be like France this tournament where great players dont necessarily make a great team. The Golden Generation had very, very few good performances regardless of the opposition. They always looked disjointed and unbalanced.
The on paper version of that team was always drastically better than the reality. This one performs about as well as expected. Pickford and the midfield are weak but not as dysfunctional.

 

[El Jefe]

Because they didn't play Portugal, 2010 Germany or Brazil simply. This England team also has a much better squad especially in attack, previous teams would be decimated by just one injury while this team can maintain the level with injuries in any position apart from CBs probably.

 

[Rajiztar]

These are shallow arguments with little basis in common sense.

These are the players from that generation and how many times they were voted into the World team of the year by their fellow professional. Every pro player in the world gets a vote. There are 65000 registered pro players in the world.

John Terry - 5 times
Steven Gerrard - 3 times
Frank Lampard x 1
Rio Ferdinand x 1

This award only started in 2005.

Lampard and Gerrard finished in the top 3 of the Ballon D'or, as did Beckham and obviously the whole XI at Euro 2004 was hugely decorated at club level

Then you also have the fact that international tournaments throw out a lot of 'noise' rather than 'signal' when it comes to player performances. This is mostly because of how short the competition is and how marginal a lot of games are i.e if England reduced to 10 men shut out Portugal and get beaten on penalties, why is the legacy of players in the team that played well damaged because of poenalties missed by a couple of players?

Answer this, how many scouts judge players on international tournaments when it comes to recommending clubs to spend the big bucks on them?

It's actually regarded as folly among the scouting community to buy out of tournaments and by and large they look at club perofrmance for the measure of a player.

To follow your point to the logical conclusion, do you agree that Kimmich, Groeska and the new generation of failing German players at international level are overrated, or is this just a damnation that you'd only extend to English players?

Kimmich goretzka like players have pretty much time to prove they are good enough in international tournaments. With hansi flick they will be one of favourites to win next world cup though in my opinion.

 

[CG1010]

England reaching the semi-final in the World Cup has been way overstated as a success, in my opinion. Beating Tunisia, Panama and Sweden, while losing to Belgium (twice) and Croatia and drawing with Columbia is honestly not that impressive.

They have done really well in this tournament, though, even it is hasn't been particularly exciting most of the time.

Yeah Lingard was one of the fulcrums of that side which reached the semi finals!

 

[Tom Van Persie]

He'd probably still go with a Lampard/Gerrard double pivot, Rooney in the free role behind Owen. I think the problem was that the old team relied too much on individual quality. Perhaps they would fare better with modern tactics.

Scholes on the left wing. He was still quality in that tournament.

 

[sparx99]

Worth also comparing the squads of France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany from then (03-08) to what they've got now.

Although France and Portugal can arguably be compared, the drop off in overall quality and depth is huge from the typical usurpers of England.

The latter point is the stickler for me. Even during that "golden period" for England, they were still having to bring on Darius Vassell or Heskey up front as the first change. England's depth in quality across the areas of the pitch that can positively impact a game is a huge factor. Plus the culture and mood around the squad.

Other teams emerge though. Belgium are obviously a top side and have been for a while. They have replaced the Dutch say in that list.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Kimmich goretzka like players have pretty much time to prove they are good enough in international tournaments. With hansi flick they will be one of favourites to win next world cup though in my opinion.

So what you're saying is that even top players need the right manager and conditions to flourish?

 

[Zehner]

These are shallow arguments with little basis in common sense.

These are the players from that generation and how many times they were voted into the World team of the year by their fellow professional. Every pro player in the world gets a vote. There are 65000 registered pro players in the world.

John Terry - 5 times
Steven Gerrard - 3 times
Frank Lampard x 1
Rio Ferdinand x 1

This award only started in 2005.

Lampard and Gerrard finished in the top 3 of the Ballon D'or, as did Beckham and obviously the whole XI at Euro 2004 was hugely decorated at club level

Then you also have the fact that international tournaments throw out a lot of 'noise' rather than 'signal' when it comes to player performances. This is mostly because of how short the competition is and how marginal a lot of games are i.e if England reduced to 10 men shut out Portugal and get beaten on penalties, why is the legacy of players in the team that played well damaged because of poenalties missed by a couple of players?

Answer this, how many scouts judge players on international tournaments when it comes to recommending clubs to spend the big bucks on them?

It's actually regarded as folly among the scouting community to buy out of tournaments and by and large they look at club perofrmance for the measure of a player.

To follow your point to the logical conclusion, do you agree that Kimmich, Groeska and the new generation of failing German players at international level are overrated, or is this just a damnation that you'd only extend to English players?

I don't say they were overrated because of the tournaments. I think their playing style was a bit outdated already by that time. Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham and Rooney to an extent were all players that loved long shots, long passes, etc. Stylistic elements that have been heavily reduced ever since because they weren't effective enough. It was just a very "British" team stylistically while the current one isn't whatsoever.

Not saying they weren't great players, mind, especially the defense. But in general, the team had too many players that had to be complemented compared to players that make others perform better.

 

[KingCavani]

Put simply - They are not.

That was a very good team that were pretty unfortunate to run up against probably the best Brazil and Portugal sides of the last 20 years. They did have some chemistry issues, especially in midfield and at times were forcing players in based on reputation but I still think that side was better relative to it's time than this one even if never quite gelled like this one.

 

[NasirTimothy]

This England team are "so much better" than the golden generation. That's the premise of your question.

What makes you think they're "so much better? Because they got further in the competition?

Chelsea were European Champions in 2012. Was that Chelsea team "so much better' than the Chelsea team of 2005?

Getting further in a cup competition does not make you "so much better".

Yes, they’re a better team because they are clearly better constructed and play together better as a team IMO. It is a team game. It’s not about the perceived quality of the individuals.

Your Chelsea example makes no sense, because Chelsea don’t just play in the Champions League, they play in lots of tournaments and the league. The Chelsea team of of the Jose era was more successful overall that the Chelsea team of the 2012 DiMatteo period, so it’s a better team.

At international level you don’t have leagues, you only have 2 cup competitions. This England team so far has been more successful than the GG team in the only competitions they can play in, so you could argue that it’s a better team.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

We’ve picked a balanced team rather than star names.

Imagine if we had done this in 2004/2006 and had the option of bringing on Gerrard/Lampard and Beckham for the final stages of the game.

Exactly this.

I love Scholes for example, but he’s not and never was a left sided midfielder.

great defence. You wouldn’t change that at all. But the rest of the team were star names that didn’t work together as well as it was ‘hoped for’. Mostly it was just hope, rather than any tactical direction. Lampard and Gerrard together didn’t work.

I’m sure individual numbers were good, but was Rooney/ Owen a good partnership?

Very rigid 442 as well did us no favours.

You also need luck, and good management.

 

[Zen86]

Talent was never the problem for the golden generation. The problem was a complete lack of team spirit and inept management from the FA down.

 

[Balljy]

He'd probably still go with a Lampard/Gerrard double pivot, Rooney in the free role behind Owen. I think the problem was that the old team relied too much on individual quality. Perhaps they would fare better with modern tactics.

It's quite funny seeing that team. There's no way that Southgate would put out a team like that now. There's no stability in the middle, no-one to cycle the ball as everyone is looking forwards and the entire midfield is effectively attack minded players. No wonder we struggled to get and retain the ball at times. The old argument that we just tried to pigeon-hole our best players into a team was so true.

Judging by what Southgate seems to do tactically one of Lampard or Gerrard would be on the bench (even both) and would be replaced by players who would put the work in and cycle the ball to the playmakers or wings. Scholes was probably our best European style player so would be given one of the slots in the middle.

It's possible Gerrard could play in a midfield 3 on the left as he was happy to tuck in and put in the work if required.

 

[duffer]

This England team so far has been more successful than the GG team in the only competitions they can play in, so you could argue that it’s a better team.

I just don't think "more successful" (when you're playing totally different teams) automatically equates to "so much better".

Was the 94 Brazil side better than the 82 side? Was the 2010 Dutch side as good as the 74 Dutch side? Of course not.

 

[DutchCruijff]

I'm pretty certain they aren't. From the period of '02-'10, international football was at a much, much higher quality. Involving the "Golden Generations" of multiple other teams, see Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Portugal and the Netherlands. There's not a single nation now that stands up to their respective Golden Generations of that period and not a single team in international football that matches up to any of those sides.

IMO, football itself has declined since the 00s - especially since the mid-late 00s.

If I were asked to pick a combined from the Golden Gen, I'd go --

--------------------------------------GK--------------------------------
Walker---------Ferdinand-----------Terry------------------Cole
--------Scholes-----Hargreaves/Carrick-------Gerrard------
------------------------------Lampard-------------------------------
-------------------Sterling---------------Rooney------------------

4/3/1/1 with Sterling drifting out wide - or could have a 433 with the same midfield + Sterling and Gerrard up top (either side they're comfortable with) with Rooney as CF.

 

[charlenefan]

I was trying to remember yesterday how this Golden Generation crashed out of each tournament

WC 2002 - against Brazil
Euro 2004 - on pens to Portugal, actually forgot the game finished 2-2 with us 2-1 down in ET at one point
WC 2006 - on pens again to Portugal, all I remember about this game is Rooney getting sent of
Euro 2008 - N/A
WC 2010 - 4-1 Germany, I remember this was the start of that exciting Germany side as we were linked with Ozil once the tournament finished. Obviously Lampard had a goal cross the line which wasn't given
Euro 2012 - on pens to Italy
WC 2014 - in the group stages losing to Uruguay and Italy
Euro 2016 - to Iceland
WC 2018 - to Croatia

Not sure when you'd class the cut off for the golden generation to be? WC 2010 or Euro 2012 or after that?

 

[DWelbz19]

- Luckier draws
- Major competition in weak periods of their squad composition
- Stronger squad balance
- Far fewer ‘must play’, big name stars - helps with the above

Culmination of those things above, I’d say.

 

[Siorac]

I was trying to remember yesterday how this Golden Generation crashed out of each tournament

WC 2002 - against Brazil
Euro 2004 - on pens to Portugal, actually forgot the game finished 2-2 with us 2-1 down in ET at one point
WC 2006 - on pens again to Portugal, all I remember about this game is Rooney getting sent of
Euro 2008 - N/A
WC 2010 - 4-1 Germany, I remember this was the start of that exciting Germany side as we were linked with Ozil once the tournament finished. Obviously Lampard had a goal cross the line which wasn't given
Euro 2012 - on pens to Italy
WC 2014 - in the group stages losing to Uruguay and Italy
Euro 2016 - to Iceland
WC 2018 - to Croatia

Not sure when you'd class the cut off for the golden generation to be? WC 2010 or Euro 2012 or after that?

I'd say the end of the golden generation was the failure to qualify for Euro 2008. At the 2010 World Cup England had a mish-mash of a team, with Matthew Upson starting in defence... This was the starting line-up in that infamous Germany game:

James
G Johnson (Wright-Phillips, 87)
A Cole
Terry
Upson
Gerrard
Lampard
Barry
Milner (J Cole, 63)
Rooney (Heskey, 71)

Golden it ain't.

 

[redshaw]

A lot of factors from better balance and setup to togetherness in the squad transcending club rivalries and a drop in quality from some nations. There's also a lot of competition for places so if you don't perform someone else will come in. The so called golden gen were set in stone more or less. We also have better ball carriers, back then it used to be just Joe Cole that could do it with calls for him to play more.

 

[groovyalbert]

Other teams emerge though. Belgium are obviously a top side and have been for a while. They have replaced the Dutch say in that list.

True, although I think the overall depth in quality in international football has massively diminished over the last 10 years or so.

 

[charlenefan]

I'd say the end of the golden generation was the failure to qualify for Euro 2008. At the 2010 World Cup England had a mish-mash of a team, with Matthew Upson starting in defence... This was the starting line-up in that infamous Germany game:

James
G Johnson (Wright-Phillips, 87)
A Cole
Terry
Upson
Gerrard
Lampard
Barry
Milner (J Cole, 63)
Rooney (Heskey, 71)

Golden it ain't.

Cole, Terry, Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney though, that's half of the so called golden generation isn't it? I forget was that the tournament that Rio got an injury on the eve of the tournament ruling him out of it at the last minute?

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

If all of the "golden generation" were playing and in their prime now, what would Southgate's starting XI look like?

James
Campbell Terry Ferdinand
Beckham Hargreaves Carrick A.Cole
Gerrard Rooney
Owen

James
Neville Terry Ferdinand A.Cole
Hargreaves Carrick
Beckham Lampard Rooney
Owen



​

 

[Classical Mechanic]

@Zehner

OK fair enough.

I was trying to remember yesterday how this Golden Generation crashed out of each tournament

WC 2002 - against Brazil
Euro 2004 - on pens to Portugal, actually forgot the game finished 2-2 with us 2-1 down in ET at one point
WC 2006 - on pens again to Portugal, all I remember about this game is Rooney getting sent of
Euro 2008 - N/A
WC 2010 - 4-1 Germany, I remember this was the start of that exciting Germany side as we were linked with Ozil once the tournament finished. Obviously Lampard had a goal cross the line which wasn't given
Euro 2012 - on pens to Italy
WC 2014 - in the group stages losing to Uruguay and Italy
Euro 2016 - to Iceland
WC 2018 - to Croatia

Not sure when you'd class the cut off for the golden generation to be? WC 2010 or Euro 2012 or after that?

2002-06 was when the team was at the peak, QF loss to Brazil in 2002, and penalty losses to Protugal in R16 and QF in 06 and 08.

In 2010 the GG were either finished or declining bar Rooney and a couple of others and there were a lot of average players replacing them. It's why I have no beef with the Lampard ghost goal in 2010 because we were appalling in that tournament.

 

[The White Pele]

I'd say the drop off in quality from the 4/5 quality players from the golden generation was quite noticeable.

You had Beckham, Gerrard , Scholes and then you had Sinclair, Mills and Heskey.

Beckham, Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard, Joe Cole, Hargreaves, Carrick, Wright Phillips, Lennon

Ferdinand, Campbell, Terry, Carragher, King (when fit), Brown, A Cole, Neville, Bridge

More than enough quality in defence and midfield to pick a balanced team with quality options from the bench.

Forward line was more of a problem. Owen past his best, Rooney not yet mature enough in his game to lead the line…Heskey, Crouch, Vassell. Defoe should have featured more but never seemed to nail down his club form at the right time.

 

[JJ12]

You say you reject the premise of the question. Let me politely remind you of Euro 2004. That tournament was won by Greece, a team that beat the team that knocked England out in the quarterfinals (Portugal).

That England squad had the following players:

Beckham, Scholes, Terry, Lampard, Gerrard, Neville, Ashley Cole, Campbell, Rooney, Owen, Bridge, King, Carragher, Butt, Hargreaves, Joe Cole, Dyer and Heskey.

So I’d respectfully submit that the premise of the question should not be rejected. That team failed.

Who are the good teams England have beat in the last 2 major tournaments

 

[groovyalbert]

I'd say the end of the golden generation was the failure to qualify for Euro 2008. At the 2010 World Cup England had a mish-mash of a team, with Matthew Upson starting in defence... This was the starting line-up in that infamous Germany game:

James
G Johnson (Wright-Phillips, 87)
A Cole
Terry
Upson
Gerrard
Lampard
Barry
Milner (J Cole, 63)
Rooney (Heskey, 71)

Golden it ain't.

I mean, you still have 5 world-class players in that starting XI. They just were never really up to it for England when it mattered.

The drop-offs in quality are pretty big, mind. 40 year old average keeper, injured forward, no wingers, and Upson. And look at those subs.

 

[Siorac]

Cole, Terry, Lampard, Gerrard and Rooney though, that's half of the so called golden generation isn't it? I forget was that the tournament that Rio got an injury on the eve of the tournament ruling him out of it at the last minute?

Yeah, he missed it through injury. No Rio, no Beckham, no Scholes, Neville or Campbell. Owen was also long gone, Hargreaves succumbed to injuries. England still had some decent players but I mean starting Glen Johnson, Barry, Upson, and Milner in a World Cup knockout game against Germany... that's no golden generation.

 

[NasirTimothy]

I just don't think "more successful" (when you're playing totally different teams) automatically equates to "so much better".

Was the 94 Brazil side better than the 82 side? Was the 2010 Dutch side as good as the 74 Dutch side? Of course not.

Ok, re your questions, I don’t understand the Dutch bit. The 74 side played exceptional football and reached two WC finals (78 as well, same players pretty much minus Cruyff) and lost both times to the host of the tournament, so there’s no grounds in my eyes to put the 2010 side up there with them.

And with the Brazil teams, yeah you could argue the 82 team was better (not defensively though obviously), but that’s because they played astonishing football. Does that apply to the GG team? Clearly not. As I recall, they were pretty dull and functional, just like the current team. But the current team is somehow able to get past the quarter final stage in a major tournament.

 

[Siorac]

But the current team is somehow able to get past the quarter final stage in a major tournament.

Well, the golden generation played Portugal twice (losing both games on penalties) and Brazil (with Rivaldo, Ronaldo, and Ronaldinho) once in quarter-finals.

Had they faced Sweden and Ukraine, they probably would have fared a lot better.