comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 42 seconds ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The French, Italians and Argentines would beg to differ
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by BARVIS (U21244)
posted 2 minutes ago
Knocked out by eventual winners Brazil in 2002 due to a freak goal, hosts Portugal in 2004, and again to Portugal in 2006 due to an illegitimate goal wasn't a bad showing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was there an illegitimate goal in 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight to penalties
altho reaching the quarters I thought England were pretty dire in the 2006 world cup... only really played well after Rooney got sent off against Portugal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, and most of that was down to Hargreaves' performance.
comment by #TopLad || Sir Alex Ferguson || (U10161)
posted 24 minutes ago
Scholes on the left wing to accommodate Gerrard and Lamps is the funniest thing about all this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes did play in midfield in WC 98 and 2002 as well as Euro 2000.
The outcome was the same before Gerrard and Lampard took over
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 42 seconds ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The French, Italians and Argentines would beg to differ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only in goal and on the left wing were we less than great. The rest of the positions were filled with top players even if they weren't exactly doing it for their country the way they were for club.
Was never really a complete side. Not enough craft and guile in midfield, and needed better athletes too.
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 6 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cech
Cafu
Cannavaro
Ferdinand
Cole
Vieira
Makalele
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Henry
Shevchenko
I make that 2 english players
comment by Ramböue (U12551)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 6 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cech
Cafu
Cannavaro
Ferdinand
Cole
Vieira
Makalele
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Henry
Shevchenko
I make that 2 english players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mean it like that, as in each of our positions had the best player in the world in it. I mean as a whole our team was as strong as any other.
It didn't need to be a complete side, though. Italy and Greece won the tournaments with far from complete sides.
Always thought they were a rigid side. How creative and fluid is a midfield of Becks, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes. Sure, yhose guys can all pick a pass, but can they drift between the lines and pull teams out of shape with their movement, dribbling etc like a Zidane, or Iniesta, or Silva, or Kaka?
Shearer and Owen were quality, but they didn't have that extra quality like a Van Basten, fat Ronaldo or Romario, and again, we're still talking rigid systems. You look at an England front 6, and they just never look cohesive. Rigid midfielders, rigid wingers, rigid forwards and little fluidity between the lines.
Shearer should be excluded since he retired before many of those others became first team England players.
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 minute ago
The whole Gerrard Lampard thing was amess, a clever manager coudl easily have had both play with Scholes behind them in a 3 man midfield.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was as much about accommodating all his big names than anything else ( those in a 3 wouldn't work as where would that leave Beckham... play a 5 midfield and need to drop Rooney or Owen etc)...
think he did try a reshuffle with Beckham as a defensive midfielder behind them at one stage (against NI in Belfast when we beat England 1-0)
Sven was blinded by 'names' imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone has to drop out and a good manager should be strong enough to do it, disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
It didn't need to be a complete side, though. Italy and Greece won the tournaments with far from complete sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is England always believe themselves an all-star collection, and can't play with the same unity and balance as certain sides. Can Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes complement each other the way Gattuso, Pirlo, De Rossi and the likes of Camoranesi, Del Piero, Totti in further midfield roles did in that tournament?
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
Tactical inflexibility, unbalanced team, mental fragility, and the English media doesn't help either...
We HAD to play one of Lampard and Gerrard, alongside one of Carrick or Hargreaves IMO, preferably Gerrard, we should have switched between 4-4-1-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, and/or 3-5-2 depending on the opposition as well.
People also forget that for the last couple of years of his international career, Scholes was poor for England, and there was a clamour for Lampard to be included.
There was a friendly at Portman Road were Scholes struggled a bit, he came off for Lampard, who scored, and generally played well and that was it, no one complained at the time I seem to remember.
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 5 minutes ago
disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't mean they wouldn't work as a 3... I meant it wouldn't work as Beckham would have missed out for example and theres no way Sven would have done that.... ever
as I said blinded by big names
agree a good manager would be strong enough to drop etc... but I did say in an earlier post bad management was part of the problem
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
I'd take Rio and Terry over Adams and Southgate
I'd take Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard over Ince, Gazza and McManaman
Shearer vs Owen is an interesting one but I'd probably give it to Owen from an international perspective.
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 3 minutes ago
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought France, Italy and Argentina and even Spain all had better squads than Brazil. Brazil had a prrtty great draw in that tournament. England was the only really good side they faced (Germany were sheite).
Apparently not. But then even if it were a complete side we would have probably failed.
I don't think that was the biggest issue in our failings when you consider who won those two tournaments -we'd surely have needed a complete side to win a tournament above Spain, for example.
Lack of adaptability was the biggest issue.
kneerash, the issue you're ignoring here that many seem to is that England couldn't play that midfield as we didn't have the strikers to play it.
Rooney and Owen could only play with two up front. Whenever we did play one up front we were weaker for it.
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 3 minutes ago
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought France, Italy and Argentina and even Spain all had better squads than Brazil. Brazil had a prrtty great draw in that tournament. England was the only really good side they faced (Germany were sheite).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy had a great draw too but munsoned it up
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again someone else missing the point I was making. Perhaps I should have worded it better. Individually and based on club form, our teams were as strong as others from top to bottom, balance aside.
Like Mourinho said, it would have been better to have played Scholes behind Gerrard and Lampard, relinquishing their duties to stay more disciplined, which is what they didn't do anyway hence that partnership not really working as well.
comment by Robb Mkhitaryan (U21234)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
I'd take Rio and Terry over Adams and Southgate
I'd take Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard over Ince, Gazza and McManaman
Shearer vs Owen is an interesting one but I'd probably give it to Owen from an international perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll honestly have the latter midfield over the former. Physical, athletic midfielder with great engine like Ince, and 2 dynamic midfielders who can drive through the lines, link-up and create.
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 5 minutes ago
disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't mean they wouldn't work as a 3... I meant it wouldn't work as Beckham would have missed out for example and theres no way Sven would have done that.... ever
as I said blinded by big names
agree a good manager would be strong enough to drop etc... but I did say in an earlier post bad management was part of the problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah cool fair enough
Sign in if you want to comment
Golden Generation
Page 2 of 4
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 42 seconds ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The French, Italians and Argentines would beg to differ
posted on 20/1/17
Penalties
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by BARVIS (U21244)
posted 2 minutes ago
Knocked out by eventual winners Brazil in 2002 due to a freak goal, hosts Portugal in 2004, and again to Portugal in 2006 due to an illegitimate goal wasn't a bad showing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was there an illegitimate goal in 2006?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight to penalties
altho reaching the quarters I thought England were pretty dire in the 2006 world cup... only really played well after Rooney got sent off against Portugal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, and most of that was down to Hargreaves' performance.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by #TopLad || Sir Alex Ferguson || (U10161)
posted 24 minutes ago
Scholes on the left wing to accommodate Gerrard and Lamps is the funniest thing about all this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholes did play in midfield in WC 98 and 2002 as well as Euro 2000.
The outcome was the same before Gerrard and Lampard took over
posted on 20/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/1/17
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 42 seconds ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The French, Italians and Argentines would beg to differ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Only in goal and on the left wing were we less than great. The rest of the positions were filled with top players even if they weren't exactly doing it for their country the way they were for club.
posted on 20/1/17
Was never really a complete side. Not enough craft and guile in midfield, and needed better athletes too.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 6 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cech
Cafu
Cannavaro
Ferdinand
Cole
Vieira
Makalele
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Henry
Shevchenko
I make that 2 english players
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Ramböue (U12551)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 6 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cech
Cafu
Cannavaro
Ferdinand
Cole
Vieira
Makalele
Zidane
Ronaldinho
Henry
Shevchenko
I make that 2 english players
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mean it like that, as in each of our positions had the best player in the world in it. I mean as a whole our team was as strong as any other.
posted on 20/1/17
It didn't need to be a complete side, though. Italy and Greece won the tournaments with far from complete sides.
posted on 20/1/17
Always thought they were a rigid side. How creative and fluid is a midfield of Becks, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes. Sure, yhose guys can all pick a pass, but can they drift between the lines and pull teams out of shape with their movement, dribbling etc like a Zidane, or Iniesta, or Silva, or Kaka?
Shearer and Owen were quality, but they didn't have that extra quality like a Van Basten, fat Ronaldo or Romario, and again, we're still talking rigid systems. You look at an England front 6, and they just never look cohesive. Rigid midfielders, rigid wingers, rigid forwards and little fluidity between the lines.
posted on 20/1/17
Shearer should be excluded since he retired before many of those others became first team England players.
posted on 20/1/17
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 minute ago
The whole Gerrard Lampard thing was amess, a clever manager coudl easily have had both play with Scholes behind them in a 3 man midfield.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was as much about accommodating all his big names than anything else ( those in a 3 wouldn't work as where would that leave Beckham... play a 5 midfield and need to drop Rooney or Owen etc)...
think he did try a reshuffle with Beckham as a defensive midfielder behind them at one stage (against NI in Belfast when we beat England 1-0)
Sven was blinded by 'names' imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone has to drop out and a good manager should be strong enough to do it, disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
It didn't need to be a complete side, though. Italy and Greece won the tournaments with far from complete sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thing is England always believe themselves an all-star collection, and can't play with the same unity and balance as certain sides. Can Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes complement each other the way Gattuso, Pirlo, De Rossi and the likes of Camoranesi, Del Piero, Totti in further midfield roles did in that tournament?
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
posted on 20/1/17
Tactical inflexibility, unbalanced team, mental fragility, and the English media doesn't help either...
We HAD to play one of Lampard and Gerrard, alongside one of Carrick or Hargreaves IMO, preferably Gerrard, we should have switched between 4-4-1-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, and/or 3-5-2 depending on the opposition as well.
People also forget that for the last couple of years of his international career, Scholes was poor for England, and there was a clamour for Lampard to be included.
There was a friendly at Portman Road were Scholes struggled a bit, he came off for Lampard, who scored, and generally played well and that was it, no one complained at the time I seem to remember.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 5 minutes ago
disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't mean they wouldn't work as a 3... I meant it wouldn't work as Beckham would have missed out for example and theres no way Sven would have done that.... ever
as I said blinded by big names
agree a good manager would be strong enough to drop etc... but I did say in an earlier post bad management was part of the problem
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
I'd take Rio and Terry over Adams and Southgate
I'd take Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard over Ince, Gazza and McManaman
Shearer vs Owen is an interesting one but I'd probably give it to Owen from an international perspective.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 3 minutes ago
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought France, Italy and Argentina and even Spain all had better squads than Brazil. Brazil had a prrtty great draw in that tournament. England was the only really good side they faced (Germany were sheite).
posted on 20/1/17
Apparently not. But then even if it were a complete side we would have probably failed.
I don't think that was the biggest issue in our failings when you consider who won those two tournaments -we'd surely have needed a complete side to win a tournament above Spain, for example.
Lack of adaptability was the biggest issue.
kneerash, the issue you're ignoring here that many seem to is that England couldn't play that midfield as we didn't have the strikers to play it.
Rooney and Owen could only play with two up front. Whenever we did play one up front we were weaker for it.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 3 minutes ago
Brazil had the best squad in 2002.
England may have won 2004-06 but seemed to lack an edge and were predictable to play against, not to mention unfortunate when it came to the crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought France, Italy and Argentina and even Spain all had better squads than Brazil. Brazil had a prrtty great draw in that tournament. England was the only really good side they faced (Germany were sheite).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy had a great draw too but munsoned it up
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again someone else missing the point I was making. Perhaps I should have worded it better. Individually and based on club form, our teams were as strong as others from top to bottom, balance aside.
Like Mourinho said, it would have been better to have played Scholes behind Gerrard and Lampard, relinquishing their duties to stay more disciplined, which is what they didn't do anyway hence that partnership not really working as well.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Robb Mkhitaryan (U21234)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 17 minutes ago
2004-2006 we arguably had the best side in the world in each position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a ridiculous statement. Utter b'llox.
As has been said the balance in midfield was the issue. I don't think England lost a game with Gerrard and Scholes in midfield. Shoe Horning Lampard into the team and laterly Beckham were a mistake.The balance of the team was all wrong.
Add in the short shiiiting mentality due to pressure England have pretty much been an abject failure since 1996.
We had better players in the 90's and better management. This golden generation has been fuelled by media hype due the popularity of our domestic game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
I'd take Rio and Terry over Adams and Southgate
I'd take Gerrard, Scholes and Lampard over Ince, Gazza and McManaman
Shearer vs Owen is an interesting one but I'd probably give it to Owen from an international perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll honestly have the latter midfield over the former. Physical, athletic midfielder with great engine like Ince, and 2 dynamic midfielders who can drive through the lines, link-up and create.
posted on 20/1/17
comment by Shugs (U14253)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 5 minutes ago
disagree that Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard wouldn't work in a 3
----------Scholes-------
Lampard-------Gerrard
Then you could play a front 3, do a diamond etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't mean they wouldn't work as a 3... I meant it wouldn't work as Beckham would have missed out for example and theres no way Sven would have done that.... ever
as I said blinded by big names
agree a good manager would be strong enough to drop etc... but I did say in an earlier post bad management was part of the problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah cool fair enough
Page 2 of 4