It's all about getting the balance right. We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006 and they proved to be no better than QF standard.
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said it looked 'ok' I didn't say it was better than the top teams in Europe.
.................
But it doesn't look OK.
Dier, Shelvey, Lallana, Barry, Milner etc should not be playing international football. Carrick is nearly 90.
All you will ever get from these players is "they are ok" or "they can do a job".
comment by Shamoon Hafez (U15867)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Knobb (U20351)
posted 27 seconds ago
Hodgson has shown he can invoke the underdog spirit and get lesser known teams to finals so he needs to do that to England. If he can get Fulham to score 4 goals against Juventus he can get England to bat above their average.
The conditions in France should be better for England than Brazil too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His Fulham team didn't have 11 Englishmen though did it? I think any manager would currently struggle to get 11 Englishmen to progress far in a tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It had Konchesky and Zamora though. You gotta respect any manager who can take a team full of players like that to a European final.
We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006
***
well we didnt really did we? According to Sky we did,
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
And by the way, history does play an important part.
Depending on the case, it can help to generate either mental barriers that can make easier obstacles seemingly impossible to overcome, or the self-belief to help you overcome them.
It doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but generally speaking taking a Germany or Italy side versus a similarly talented England side and they played a more or less equal encounter, you'd fancy the former two to prevail precisely because of the likelihood of them believing in themselves more in the definiing moments.
That's the weight of history for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone should have reminded PL-era Liverpool of their 80's history then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they'd have "fluked their way to the CL title" (to use a worn phrase) without it? I don't.
Talking about main favourites for the title, I'd restrict it to Germany and France. I feel Spain are too far behind in their redevelopment to pose a serious challenge.
Germany have the players and the experience, and you'd have to think them capable of pulling themselves together for the tournament.
France have a good squad and an excellent record in tournaments on home soil. They won both the last Euros and the last World Cup they hosted.
How good were Greece historically?
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said it looked 'ok' I didn't say it was better than the top teams in Europe.
.................
But it doesn't look OK.
Dier, Shelvey, Lallana, Barry, Milner etc should not be playing international football. Carrick is nearly 90.
All you will ever get from these players is "they are ok" or "they can do a job".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milner I agree is simply a carthorse.
The others look ok and could go on to do well. It all comes down to whether they can replicate their club form and if the balance can be got right. Wilshere, Barkley and Carrick would make for a solid midfield.
England don't really need to be dominant in midfield in order to do well imo. I think they'll stand a good chance against anyone providing they are tight enough off the ball and capable in attack of bringing their wide players into the game.
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 4 minutes ago
We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006
***
well we didnt really did we? According to Sky we did,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lampard in his peak, Gerrard in his peak, Scholes near his peak. Beckham as well.
Yes it was a very good midfield on paper, just mismanaged.
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As good as Porto when they won the CL.
The issue here is that England will never take that approach and have 11 men behind the ball.
And in fairness, people still talking about Greece being the worst winner ever.
Lampard and Gerrard were ok...did a job.
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 2 minutes ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ancient Greeks were fantastic!
However, their football side had done nothing of note before 2004. However, they had a set game plan, defended well and scored from set pieces and were dogged enough to win.
I wouldn't have England down as favourites but they can do well in the tournament if everything goes right for them. No doubt about that.
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
And by the way, history does play an important part.
Depending on the case, it can help to generate either mental barriers that can make easier obstacles seemingly impossible to overcome, or the self-belief to help you overcome them.
It doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but generally speaking taking a Germany or Italy side versus a similarly talented England side and they played a more or less equal encounter, you'd fancy the former two to prevail precisely because of the likelihood of them believing in themselves more in the definiing moments.
That's the weight of history for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone should have reminded PL-era Liverpool of their 80's history then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they'd have "fluked their way to the CL title" (to use a worn phrase) without it? I don't.
Talking about main favourites for the title, I'd restrict it to Germany and France. I feel Spain are too far behind in their redevelopment to pose a serious challenge.
Germany have the players and the experience, and you'd have to think them capable of pulling themselves together for the tournament.
France have a good squad and an excellent record in tournaments on home soil. They won both the last Euros and the last World Cup they hosted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do think that winning a lot of titles in the 80's wasn't the reason they came back to beat AC Milan when they were 3-0 down, in 2005.
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying history plays an important part doesn't mean it's the beginning and the end, otherwise you'd never have 1st-time champions and you'd never have unexpected winners. As stated, it can play either in your favour or against you from a mental perspective.
In Greece's case, you could even argue that not having any real history in finals might have weighed them down less than having a negative one, if you compare them to Portugal, who'd come close twice and had the additional pressure of playing on home soil.
Yes I do think that winning a lot of titles in the 80's wasn't the reason they came back to beat AC Milan when they were 3-0 down, in 2005.
_________
That wasn't the question, and nobody said it was THE reason either, but in any event I'd argue that it probably played a part in that comeback too.
Wilshere Ox and Theo all need to go for England to be decent
England are an average football team with an average coach.
The only thing that plays in your favour is that you will get some easy games to ease yourself into the tournament since UEFA effectively made it easier to qualify than not to qualify.
Could help you later on in the tournament.
But in all honesty I don't really see many English players who would get into the Spanish or German sides.
we've got a lot of very good pacy forwards and a really good keeper. Everything else won't even remotely worry the better sides.
but anything can happen with multiple threats up top and someone keeping them out at the other end.
fingers crossed
I love the way a lot of supporters want Wilshire, Sturridge and Walcott as first picks. All three are just about the biggest sick notes in British football. HTF can anybody serious think Hodgson is going into a major tournament with those three as his main men. I doubt they will even be fit when the tournament comes around.
I love the way a lot of supporters want Wilshire, Sturridge and Walcott as first picks. All three are just about the biggest sick notes in British football. HTF can anybody serious think Hodgson is going into a major tournament with those three as his main men. I doubt they will even be fit when the tournament comes around.
--------------------------
We remain hopefully they'll be fit because the alternatives are Tottenham players!
Sign in if you want to comment
England are among the favourites
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 13/10/15
It's all about getting the balance right. We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006 and they proved to be no better than QF standard.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said it looked 'ok' I didn't say it was better than the top teams in Europe.
.................
But it doesn't look OK.
Dier, Shelvey, Lallana, Barry, Milner etc should not be playing international football. Carrick is nearly 90.
All you will ever get from these players is "they are ok" or "they can do a job".
posted on 13/10/15
comment by Shamoon Hafez (U15867)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Knobb (U20351)
posted 27 seconds ago
Hodgson has shown he can invoke the underdog spirit and get lesser known teams to finals so he needs to do that to England. If he can get Fulham to score 4 goals against Juventus he can get England to bat above their average.
The conditions in France should be better for England than Brazil too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His Fulham team didn't have 11 Englishmen though did it? I think any manager would currently struggle to get 11 Englishmen to progress far in a tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It had Konchesky and Zamora though. You gotta respect any manager who can take a team full of players like that to a European final.
posted on 13/10/15
We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006
***
well we didnt really did we? According to Sky we did,
posted on 13/10/15
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
And by the way, history does play an important part.
Depending on the case, it can help to generate either mental barriers that can make easier obstacles seemingly impossible to overcome, or the self-belief to help you overcome them.
It doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but generally speaking taking a Germany or Italy side versus a similarly talented England side and they played a more or less equal encounter, you'd fancy the former two to prevail precisely because of the likelihood of them believing in themselves more in the definiing moments.
That's the weight of history for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone should have reminded PL-era Liverpool of their 80's history then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they'd have "fluked their way to the CL title" (to use a worn phrase) without it? I don't.
Talking about main favourites for the title, I'd restrict it to Germany and France. I feel Spain are too far behind in their redevelopment to pose a serious challenge.
Germany have the players and the experience, and you'd have to think them capable of pulling themselves together for the tournament.
France have a good squad and an excellent record in tournaments on home soil. They won both the last Euros and the last World Cup they hosted.
posted on 13/10/15
How good were Greece historically?
posted on 13/10/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 2 minutes ago
I said it looked 'ok' I didn't say it was better than the top teams in Europe.
.................
But it doesn't look OK.
Dier, Shelvey, Lallana, Barry, Milner etc should not be playing international football. Carrick is nearly 90.
All you will ever get from these players is "they are ok" or "they can do a job".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milner I agree is simply a carthorse.
The others look ok and could go on to do well. It all comes down to whether they can replicate their club form and if the balance can be got right. Wilshere, Barkley and Carrick would make for a solid midfield.
posted on 13/10/15
England don't really need to be dominant in midfield in order to do well imo. I think they'll stand a good chance against anyone providing they are tight enough off the ball and capable in attack of bringing their wide players into the game.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 4 minutes ago
We had one of the best midfields on paper from 2002-2006
***
well we didnt really did we? According to Sky we did,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lampard in his peak, Gerrard in his peak, Scholes near his peak. Beckham as well.
Yes it was a very good midfield on paper, just mismanaged.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As good as Porto when they won the CL.
The issue here is that England will never take that approach and have 11 men behind the ball.
And in fairness, people still talking about Greece being the worst winner ever.
posted on 13/10/15
Lampard and Gerrard were ok...did a job.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 2 minutes ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ancient Greeks were fantastic!
However, their football side had done nothing of note before 2004. However, they had a set game plan, defended well and scored from set pieces and were dogged enough to win.
I wouldn't have England down as favourites but they can do well in the tournament if everything goes right for them. No doubt about that.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Spurtle2 (U1608)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
And by the way, history does play an important part.
Depending on the case, it can help to generate either mental barriers that can make easier obstacles seemingly impossible to overcome, or the self-belief to help you overcome them.
It doesn't mean they can't be overcome, but generally speaking taking a Germany or Italy side versus a similarly talented England side and they played a more or less equal encounter, you'd fancy the former two to prevail precisely because of the likelihood of them believing in themselves more in the definiing moments.
That's the weight of history for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone should have reminded PL-era Liverpool of their 80's history then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they'd have "fluked their way to the CL title" (to use a worn phrase) without it? I don't.
Talking about main favourites for the title, I'd restrict it to Germany and France. I feel Spain are too far behind in their redevelopment to pose a serious challenge.
Germany have the players and the experience, and you'd have to think them capable of pulling themselves together for the tournament.
France have a good squad and an excellent record in tournaments on home soil. They won both the last Euros and the last World Cup they hosted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do think that winning a lot of titles in the 80's wasn't the reason they came back to beat AC Milan when they were 3-0 down, in 2005.
posted on 13/10/15
comment by RB&W (U2335)
posted 1 minute ago
How good were Greece historically?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying history plays an important part doesn't mean it's the beginning and the end, otherwise you'd never have 1st-time champions and you'd never have unexpected winners. As stated, it can play either in your favour or against you from a mental perspective.
In Greece's case, you could even argue that not having any real history in finals might have weighed them down less than having a negative one, if you compare them to Portugal, who'd come close twice and had the additional pressure of playing on home soil.
posted on 13/10/15
Yes I do think that winning a lot of titles in the 80's wasn't the reason they came back to beat AC Milan when they were 3-0 down, in 2005.
_________
That wasn't the question, and nobody said it was THE reason either, but in any event I'd argue that it probably played a part in that comeback too.
posted on 13/10/15
Wilshere Ox and Theo all need to go for England to be decent
posted on 13/10/15
England are an average football team with an average coach.
The only thing that plays in your favour is that you will get some easy games to ease yourself into the tournament since UEFA effectively made it easier to qualify than not to qualify.
Could help you later on in the tournament.
But in all honesty I don't really see many English players who would get into the Spanish or German sides.
posted on 13/10/15
we've got a lot of very good pacy forwards and a really good keeper. Everything else won't even remotely worry the better sides.
but anything can happen with multiple threats up top and someone keeping them out at the other end.
fingers crossed
posted on 14/10/15
I love the way a lot of supporters want Wilshire, Sturridge and Walcott as first picks. All three are just about the biggest sick notes in British football. HTF can anybody serious think Hodgson is going into a major tournament with those three as his main men. I doubt they will even be fit when the tournament comes around.
posted on 14/10/15
I love the way a lot of supporters want Wilshire, Sturridge and Walcott as first picks. All three are just about the biggest sick notes in British football. HTF can anybody serious think Hodgson is going into a major tournament with those three as his main men. I doubt they will even be fit when the tournament comes around.
--------------------------
We remain hopefully they'll be fit because the alternatives are Tottenham players!
Page 6 of 6
6