| Soccer Board |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom |  Page 3 of 5  |
| Message |
| re: Why hasn't England been better in international competitions? England are an above average side that just lose to better teams. Often times they are unlucky too, but I think the biggest problems stem from the fact that they often shun their most technical players. I mean, putting Paul Scholes on the left to accommodate Lampard and Gerrard in the middle of the park? Scholes is a better deep lying CM than both, and I'd argue that he was as good as both behind the striker. Then Glenn Hoddle, who was dropped when he was probably the classiest, most technical English player in favor of more direct players. Also, when their plan A seems to fail, they return to the default punt and run, even though many players play along the ground at their clubs. The players don't seem to have the tactical awareness that they do in other countries. Also English players save for very few, often have their limited roles, and cannot exist outside of those roles. Despite this, they aren't a bad team, but they aren't good enough most years to beat the best in the world. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: AVB to Liverpool. What do you think? Reply • Back to Top |
| Give him time to implement his system and I really think he will do well. AVB has to be able to adapt his tactics to his team though. I mean, do you think Agger and Skrtel can play the high line immediately? Benetiz's teams could press pretty well, but often they would drop very deep too. I hope he gets 2 years, because I love his system. Reply • Back to Top |
| I'm pretty excited. He's young and progressive. Really hope he's given time and money. Reply • Back to Top |
| Ray Hudson sums it up good LINK Reply • Back to Top |
| Failure to adapt to new styles and techniques that spread around mainland Europe but not to Great Britain, or so says Soccernomics. ETA: Sorry, just read page 3 before posting. Looking back at bottom of 1 and all of 2, I see Soccernomics brought up extensively. This post was edited on 5/16 at 9:57 pm Reply • Back to Top |
| team chemistry. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: frickin Glenn Johnson.   Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I like to compare them to the Dallas Cowboys. Always picked to do big things but always falling short. Reply • Back to Top |
| To be fair, it's only the English media that expects them to do something. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: damn good post.  Reply • Back to Top |
quote: that isn't true look at how high they are always ranked by FIFA and the media and the fans. Reply • Back to Top |
| FIFA rankings mean dick. English media are the only ones who expect shite from England. Reply • Back to Top |
| FIFA rankings aren't generally accurate. England are rarely thought able to actually win the tournament, at least post 2000's. This post was edited on 5/16 at 10:13 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I didn't say they meant anything it's just proof someone thinks they're going to do something. If there is some better ranking system please let me know but until then we sort of have to used the flawed system. Reply • Back to Top |
| We don't have to use anything but watching games to see that England is not good enough to be favorites for any tourney. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: right but usually are expected to get to the semi's and lately they haven't even done that. Reply • Back to Top |
| I also agree with the sentiment that the only ones expecting England to make the semis are the English. Reply • Back to Top |
| And, remember, England's population is only 1/6 of America's. Even though it's the country's most popular sport, you still have a smaller talent pool. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: seems too far to me. You really think England should never be considered a favorite in any tournament ever just to get to the semis? This post was edited on 5/16 at 10:21 pm Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
 Page 3 of 5  | ||
on 5/16 at 8:51 pm to 
on 5/16 at 8:53 pm to 
on 5/16 at 9:40 pm to 
on 5/16 at 9:51 pm to 
on 5/16 at 10:02 pm to 
on 5/16 at 10:10 pm to 