- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why hasn't England been better in international competitions?
Posted on 5/16/12 at 8:51 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
Posted on 5/16/12 at 8:51 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
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.
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.
2
Posted on 5/16/12 at 8:53 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
crazy4lsu
AVB to Liverpool. What do you think?
Posted on 5/16/12 at 9:02 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
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.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 9:06 pm to crazy4lsu
I'm pretty excited. He's young and progressive. Really hope he's given time and money.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 9:40 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
Posted on 5/16/12 at 9:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
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.
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 5/16/12 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:02 pm to Draconian Sanctions
team chemistry.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:04 pm to theOG
quote:
because they don't fricking include micha richards in their squad list.
frickin Glenn Johnson.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:06 pm to tickfawtiger
quote:
They are by FAR the most under-achieving team of all the major competitors..
I like to compare them to the Dallas Cowboys. Always picked to do big things but always falling short.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:07 pm to adammwilson
To be fair, it's only the English media that expects them to do something.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:08 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
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.
damn good post.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:09 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
To be fair, it's only the English media that expects them to do something.
that isn't true look at how high they are always ranked by FIFA and the media and the fans.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:10 pm to adammwilson
FIFA rankings mean dick. English media are the only ones who expect shite from England.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:12 pm to adammwilson
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 5/16/12 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:13 pm to hendersonshands
quote:
FIFA rankings mean dick.
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.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:14 pm to adammwilson
We don't have to use anything but watching games to see that England is not good enough to be favorites for any tourney.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:14 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
England are rarely thought able to actually win the tournament, at least post 2000's.
right but usually are expected to get to the semi's and lately they haven't even done that.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:16 pm to adammwilson
I also agree with the sentiment that the only ones expecting England to make the semis are the English.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:17 pm to hendersonshands
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.
Posted on 5/16/12 at 10:21 pm to BraveTiger225
quote:
I also agree with the sentiment that the only ones expecting England to make the semis are the English.
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 5/16/12 at 10:21 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News