That could be true but my point is that back then the players played far less competative matches than they do today, the top flight Premiership teams have the FA Cup the League Cup, the Euro Cup, the FA Cup and the League games to play, if we cannot get a team of the best from 2 or 3 clubs then they need to play more England games together. train together more often and that with a busy schedule is difficult.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Hodgson set to be England manager
Hodgson as England manager ?
Yes - Good choice
0%
No - Bad choice
0%
Couldn't give a rats arse
0%
1 vote
Quote by MidsCouple24
That could be true but my point is that back then the players played far less competative matches than they do today, the top flight Premiership teams have the FA Cup the League Cup, the Euro Cup, the FA Cup and the League games to play, if we cannot get a team of the best from 2 or 3 clubs then they need to play more England games together. train together more often and that with a busy schedule is difficult.
It's a fallacy that the top players play a lot more competitive matches now than back in the 60s. It's true that to win Champions League a team will have to play 13 matches, where as Man U only played 9 in winning the competition in 1968, however the old First Division was played over 42 matches to the current 38. The FA and League Cups both existed in the 60s so there has been no overall increase in matches played by the top clubs. The only teams playing more matches are those having to go through the qualifying rounds of European tournaments.
and your point is ........ ?
They play lot's of matches then, they play lot's of matches now, they didn't win much more then than they do now, 1 world cup in all those years and that was when we were the home team which has to give a team a significant advantage.
What I said was that to be able to compete against the best teams and best players in the world, spending more time working together as a team has to be a good thing but that it is difficult to get them together for that, perhaps during the closed season thier training to keep in shape could be done at a National Level for any players that want to be considered for National Team selection, clubs get thier players training and keep fit the way the want them to, players get to work with players from other teams and perhaps learn about thier league opponents or what not to do or what would be a good thing to try and most importantly they get lots of practice as a team not a bunch of individuals coming together a few times a year. I also said that when we can get a team together that play together on a regular basis we always do a little better but to go all the way the teams need that added time together.
Maybe if I explain it in a way most of us understand, in Swinging the person most likely to hit the right buttons for you is your partner, he/she knows your likes and dislikes, they know what does it for you and they go for those spots ignoring the bits that aren't really sensative for you, the best team is a team made up of partners, the fun of playing with others comes from exploring new pastures but the sex will never be quite as good as it is with your own partner it will just be good in a different way.
They play lot's of matches then, they play lot's of matches now, they didn't win much more then than they do now, 1 world cup in all those years and that was when we were the home team which has to give a team a significant advantage.
What I said was that to be able to compete against the best teams and best players in the world, spending more time working together as a team has to be a good thing but that it is difficult to get them together for that, perhaps during the closed season thier training to keep in shape could be done at a National Level for any players that want to be considered for National Team selection, clubs get thier players training and keep fit the way the want them to, players get to work with players from other teams and perhaps learn about thier league opponents or what not to do or what would be a good thing to try and most importantly they get lots of practice as a team not a bunch of individuals coming together a few times a year. I also said that when we can get a team together that play together on a regular basis we always do a little better but to go all the way the teams need that added time together.
Maybe if I explain it in a way most of us understand, in Swinging the person most likely to hit the right buttons for you is your partner, he/she knows your likes and dislikes, they know what does it for you and they go for those spots ignoring the bits that aren't really sensative for you, the best team is a team made up of partners, the fun of playing with others comes from exploring new pastures but the sex will never be quite as good as it is with your own partner it will just be good in a different way.
Quote by MidsCouple24
and your point is ........ ?
They play lot's of matches then, they play lot's of matches now, they didn't win much more then than they do now, 1 world cup in all those years and that was when we were the home team which has to give a team a significant advantage.
What I said was that to be able to compete against the best teams and best players in the world, spending more time working together as a team has to be a good thing but that it is difficult to get them together for that, perhaps during the closed season thier training to keep in shape could be done at a National Level for any players that want to be considered for National Team selection, clubs get thier players training and keep fit the way the want them to, players get to work with players from other teams and perhaps learn about thier league opponents or what not to do or what would be a good thing to try and most importantly they get lots of practice as a team not a bunch of individuals coming together a few times a year. I also said that when we can get a team together that play together on a regular basis we always do a little better but to go all the way the teams need that added time together.
Maybe if I explain it in a way most of us understand, in Swinging the person most likely to hit the right buttons for you is your partner, he/she knows your likes and dislikes, they know what does it for you and they go for those spots ignoring the bits that aren't really sensative for you, the best team is a team made up of partners, the fun of playing with others comes from exploring new pastures but the sex will never be quite as good as it is with your own partner it will just be good in a different way.
My point is you are wrong in some of your assertions or I could try and explain it in terms that most people on here understand and say you are talking bollox at times.
Quote by Max777
That could be true but my point is that back then the players played far less competative matches than they do today, the top flight Premiership teams have the FA Cup the League Cup, the Euro Cup, the FA Cup and the League games to play, if we cannot get a team of the best from 2 or 3 clubs then they need to play more England games together. train together more often and that with a busy schedule is difficult.
It's a fallacy that the top players play a lot more competitive matches now than back in the 60s. It's true that to win Champions League a team will have to play 13 matches, where as Man U only played 9 in winning the competition in 1968, however the old First Division was played over 42 matches to the current 38. The FA and League Cups both existed in the 60s so there has been no overall increase in matches played by the top clubs. The only teams playing more matches are those having to go through the qualifying rounds of European tournaments.
yes max like 142 games to get to the final of the europa crap cup
So you don't think that the England squad playing more games as a team will improve thier ability as a team, you really think that ?
And with that stated you really think it is me that is talking bollox ?
Because that is what I have been saying all along and my only reference to how many matches are played was to say that this is why it is difficult for them to train together as an England squad, because during the football season I believe they are either going to be playing or being rested by the coach/manager and why I think getting them together outside of the season should be looked at.
And with that stated you really think it is me that is talking bollox ?
Because that is what I have been saying all along and my only reference to how many matches are played was to say that this is why it is difficult for them to train together as an England squad, because during the football season I believe they are either going to be playing or being rested by the coach/manager and why I think getting them together outside of the season should be looked at.
Sex God
Mids,
Actually think you got it right when you said, "....England squad playing...."
Too many times in recent years it appears they may have only turned up in person, but not in spirit.
For this there has to be a variety of factors and I don't believe that it's a any longer a fair comparison between players or number of games between the current day and previous decades or generations. When you look back at '66 (and please 'get over it') wages were a lot lower, many had other jobs, etc. and one of the main ways to make money, gain recognition, endorsements and such like was via thge national team. Compare this with today and Premiership players, this type of 'hunger' or incentive has been removed.
Yes, the FA have a part to play - not only in appointments, but also support, arranging games, etc. Granted a fluent english speaker, whether 1st or 2nd language, has got to be a considerable advantage.
Yes, the Manager and all the coaching staff have a part to play, as do physio's etc.
However, for us, the playing staff also have a very large part in all this, none more so when they actually take to the pitch.
This whole situation isn't helped by the 'instant gratification' culture we have around immediate results and the widespread media where everyone is trying to earn a story and the way it feeds off it self doesn't help.
Actually think you got it right when you said, "....England squad playing...."
Too many times in recent years it appears they may have only turned up in person, but not in spirit.
For this there has to be a variety of factors and I don't believe that it's a any longer a fair comparison between players or number of games between the current day and previous decades or generations. When you look back at '66 (and please 'get over it') wages were a lot lower, many had other jobs, etc. and one of the main ways to make money, gain recognition, endorsements and such like was via thge national team. Compare this with today and Premiership players, this type of 'hunger' or incentive has been removed.
Yes, the FA have a part to play - not only in appointments, but also support, arranging games, etc. Granted a fluent english speaker, whether 1st or 2nd language, has got to be a considerable advantage.
Yes, the Manager and all the coaching staff have a part to play, as do physio's etc.
However, for us, the playing staff also have a very large part in all this, none more so when they actually take to the pitch.
This whole situation isn't helped by the 'instant gratification' culture we have around immediate results and the widespread media where everyone is trying to earn a story and the way it feeds off it self doesn't help.
Quote by MidsCouple24
So you don't think that the England squad playing more games as a team will improve thier ability as a team, you really think that ?
And with that stated you really think it is me that is talking bollox ?
Because that is what I have been saying all along and my only reference to how many matches are played was to say that this is why it is difficult for them to train together as an England squad, because during the football season I believe they are either going to be playing or being rested by the coach/manager and why I think getting them together outside of the season should be looked at.
What you have been saying all along are things such as:
"Remember when England could choose the great Manchester Squad of Charlton, Stiles and co"
"That same squad included 2 members of Leeds United who were
Terry Cooper
Jack Charlton "
"Now of course that was the squad picked for the England Team and only 11 + subs got on the pitch for the 1966 win but my point is that so many players played for the same team and were eligible and chosen for the squad."
"but my point is that back then the players played far less competitive matches than they do today"
all of which are incorrect.
I have not said that I don't think that the England squad playing more games as a team will improve their ability as a team......to be honest that's stating the bleeding obvious, however it ain't going to happen.
I would agree entirely, England has to be a team, made up of those hoping to get picked to possibly play, those on the bench, those on the pitch and the managers, coaches, physio's and the rest of the "team" that are necessary to get them on the pitch.
I believe that the players themselves can get too tangled up in just who is on the pitch, when Beckham got sent off the whole team spirit changed instantly and we were left with a team that already believed they had lost the match, the exact same thing happened when Rooney got sent off.
When we played Brazil and Germany I blame the managers descision to have the players play the offside trap, all of Germanys goals came as a result of them beating the trap and when you do beat it your wide open on goal, it is a dangerous tactic at the best of times but can be effective, it is rarely effective against the best players in the world.
The England players need to realise that they do not need to rely on any one player, United have been League champions so many times despite the pundits saying "what now that they have lost Cantonna, Schmeichel, Ronaldo, Tevez, each season they seem to lose what some consider the mainstay of the team but each season they do well finishing outside the top 3 seems to be a non-event (though it has happened) and usually it's top spot, why can't the England players learn from that, I believe that those left on the pitch after the 2 departures I mention were capable of winning both those matches and more to come sadly they didn't believe it.
I believe that the players themselves can get too tangled up in just who is on the pitch, when Beckham got sent off the whole team spirit changed instantly and we were left with a team that already believed they had lost the match, the exact same thing happened when Rooney got sent off.
When we played Brazil and Germany I blame the managers descision to have the players play the offside trap, all of Germanys goals came as a result of them beating the trap and when you do beat it your wide open on goal, it is a dangerous tactic at the best of times but can be effective, it is rarely effective against the best players in the world.
The England players need to realise that they do not need to rely on any one player, United have been League champions so many times despite the pundits saying "what now that they have lost Cantonna, Schmeichel, Ronaldo, Tevez, each season they seem to lose what some consider the mainstay of the team but each season they do well finishing outside the top 3 seems to be a non-event (though it has happened) and usually it's top spot, why can't the England players learn from that, I believe that those left on the pitch after the 2 departures I mention were capable of winning both those matches and more to come sadly they didn't believe it.
mids you keep saying about england playing more games as a team, and meeting as a team, but when is this likely to happen?
our season is a long one especially this year as when our season finishes, the players are then at the euros. if we manage to have a decent run the new season will not be that far off. it is all well and good blaming the likes of ferguson for not wanting to release players for pointless " friendly's " that mean nothing except to line the pockets of the greedy FA. I give you a player in Michael Owen whilst playing for newcastle. he got injured playing for england and was out for newcastle for months with a hamstring problem. he then played one full game and a bit of another game after that long lay off, and then played again for england.
i remember the newcastle fans being up in arms over it, as he had cost them a huge sum of money, had been out injured for months and now plays one full game for newcastle and is recalled. some would say to early. then he got injured AGAIN in that comeback match. once again out for months and newcastle ended up selling him to man utd, and he has struggled to get a game since.
my point is when mr owen opens up his wage slip or looks at his bank account, he would have seen a very hefty amount of money paid in by NEWCASTLE utd FC. not england FC. The FA do not help at all and often they will not move a premier game when england have yet another freindly 3 days earlier or later than a premier game.
the FA want it all ways as usual, and for once i agree with ferguson in as much as why should clubs be compelled to release a player for international duty? a club may have a massive game coming up a few days after an england game yet they still have to release that player for a game that can mean nothing. if i was a manager i would remind that player who pays there wages, as it certainly aint the FA. i am sure there have been many players injured while playing for there country and no compensation from the FA to that club concerned. there was a huge issue where newcastle were looking at suing the FA over the Owen affair but cannot remember what happened now.
you want the england team mids to play more or train more as a team, then look towards the FA to move a few premier league fixtures to accommodate that. the FA are nothing but a no good greedy bunch of peeple, who pretend that they are putting english football first, when in fact they do what they do purely for the money it brings in.
our season is a long one especially this year as when our season finishes, the players are then at the euros. if we manage to have a decent run the new season will not be that far off. it is all well and good blaming the likes of ferguson for not wanting to release players for pointless " friendly's " that mean nothing except to line the pockets of the greedy FA. I give you a player in Michael Owen whilst playing for newcastle. he got injured playing for england and was out for newcastle for months with a hamstring problem. he then played one full game and a bit of another game after that long lay off, and then played again for england.
i remember the newcastle fans being up in arms over it, as he had cost them a huge sum of money, had been out injured for months and now plays one full game for newcastle and is recalled. some would say to early. then he got injured AGAIN in that comeback match. once again out for months and newcastle ended up selling him to man utd, and he has struggled to get a game since.
my point is when mr owen opens up his wage slip or looks at his bank account, he would have seen a very hefty amount of money paid in by NEWCASTLE utd FC. not england FC. The FA do not help at all and often they will not move a premier game when england have yet another freindly 3 days earlier or later than a premier game.
the FA want it all ways as usual, and for once i agree with ferguson in as much as why should clubs be compelled to release a player for international duty? a club may have a massive game coming up a few days after an england game yet they still have to release that player for a game that can mean nothing. if i was a manager i would remind that player who pays there wages, as it certainly aint the FA. i am sure there have been many players injured while playing for there country and no compensation from the FA to that club concerned. there was a huge issue where newcastle were looking at suing the FA over the Owen affair but cannot remember what happened now.
you want the england team mids to play more or train more as a team, then look towards the FA to move a few premier league fixtures to accommodate that. the FA are nothing but a no good greedy bunch of peeple, who pretend that they are putting english football first, when in fact they do what they do purely for the money it brings in.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I would agree entirely, England has to be a team, made up of those hoping to get picked to possibly play, those on the bench, those on the pitch and the managers, coaches, physio's and the rest of the "team" that are necessary to get them on the pitch.
I believe that the players themselves can get too tangled up in just who is on the pitch, when Beckham got sent off the whole team spirit changed instantly and we were left with a team that already believed they had lost the match, the exact same thing happened when Rooney got sent off.
That's probably because it then became 11 against 10
When we played Brazil and Germany I blame the managers descision to have the players play the offside trap, all of Germanys goals came as a result of them beating the trap and when you do beat it your wide open on goal, it is a dangerous tactic at the best of times but can be effective, it is rarely effective against the best players in the world.
I have no idea as to which Brazil match you refer but if you are talking about the 4-1 defeat to Germany in the 2010 World Cup, you really are talking bollox. The 3rd and 4th goals came from German breakaways when England were actually attacking the German goal and the 1st ( from memory) was pretty much a combination of route 1 football and crap English defending.
The England players need to realise that they do not need to rely on any one player, United have been League champions so many times despite the pundits saying "what now that they have lost Cantonna, Schmeichel, Ronaldo, Tevez, each season they seem to lose what some consider the mainstay of the team but each season they do well finishing outside the top 3 seems to be a non-event (though it has happened) and usually it's top spot, why can't the England players learn from that, I believe that those left on the pitch after the 2 departures I mention were capable of winning both those matches and more to come sadly they didn't believe it.
Yeah but when Man U lost those players, they replaced them with others. As I have stated above when Rooney and Beckham were sent off it became 11 against 10 and Portugal and Argentina are both top sides. I wonder how many titles Man U would have won playing only 10 men every game?
Quote by Max777
I would agree entirely, England has to be a team, made up of those hoping to get picked to possibly play, those on the bench, those on the pitch and the managers, coaches, physio's and the rest of the "team" that are necessary to get them on the pitch.
I believe that the players themselves can get too tangled up in just who is on the pitch, when Beckham got sent off the whole team spirit changed instantly and we were left with a team that already believed they had lost the match, the exact same thing happened when Rooney got sent off.
That's probably because it then became 11 against 10
And you don't think 10 motivated, self believing players can beat 11 men ? history tells us otherwise, the teams heads went down and another 3 subs on the pitch to make it 13 to 11 in our favour wouldn't have helped them on those days the defeatism was tangible.
When we played Brazil and Germany I blame the managers descision to have the players play the offside trap, all of Germanys goals came as a result of them beating the trap and when you do beat it your wide open on goal, it is a dangerous tactic at the best of times but can be effective, it is rarely effective against the best players in the world.
I have no idea as to which Brazil match you refer but if you are talking about the 4-1 defeat to Germany in the 2010 World Cup, you really are talking bollox. The 3rd and 4th goals came from German breakaways when England were actually attacking the German goal and the 1st ( from memory) was pretty much a combination of route 1 football and crap English defending.
Yes they broke away, but didn't have to break far as we were playing the offside trap and as soon as that was breached they had a third of the pitch to themselves and the goalie
The England players need to realise that they do not need to rely on any one player, United have been League champions so many times despite the pundits saying "what now that they have lost Cantonna, Schmeichel, Ronaldo, Tevez, each season they seem to lose what some consider the mainstay of the team but each season they do well finishing outside the top 3 seems to be a non-event (though it has happened) and usually it's top spot, why can't the England players learn from that, I believe that those left on the pitch after the 2 departures I mention were capable of winning both those matches and more to come sadly they didn't believe it.
Yeah but when Man U lost those players, they replaced them with others. As I have stated above when Rooney and Beckham were sent off it became 11 against 10 and Portugal and Argentina are both top sides. I wonder how many titles Man U would have won playing only 10 men every game?
Of course they were replaced but I don't think any Man Utd fan or true football pundit would say the subsequent replacements are as good as they replaced, Schmeichal was possibly the best keeper I have ever seen scoring 8 goals himself in his career and motivating the rest of the team substantialy, Cantonna was a playmaker of unquestionable ability, his play resulted in goals from defenders and even Gary Nevilles first ever top flight goal, his ability to put players in a position where they could not miss was magnificent and it is hard to defend against a possible 8 or more strikers which is what he turned the rest of the team into at times, Ronaldo would be hard to replace with an equal at any club and continues to go from strength to strength. I don't think anyone would swap Ronaldo for Tevez or Berbatov as Utd had to, and while I am on that Van der Saar was another great loss to United that they still haven't replaced with an equal and probably won't for a long time.
Quote by starlightcouple
mids you keep saying about england playing more games as a team, and meeting as a team, but when is this likely to happen?
our season is a long one especially this year as when our season finishes, the players are then at the euros. if we manage to have a decent run the new season will not be that far off. it is all well and good blaming the likes of ferguson for not wanting to release players for pointless " friendly's " that mean nothing except to line the pockets of the greedy FA. I give you a player in Michael Owen whilst playing for newcastle. he got injured playing for england and was out for newcastle for months with a hamstring problem. he then played one full game and a bit of another game after that long lay off, and then played again for england.
i remember the newcastle fans being up in arms over it, as he had cost them a huge sum of money, had been out injured for months and now plays one full game for newcastle and is recalled. some would say to early. then he got injured AGAIN in that comeback match. once again out for months and newcastle ended up selling him to man utd, and he has struggled to get a game since.
my point is when mr owen opens up his wage slip or looks at his bank account, he would have seen a very hefty amount of money paid in by NEWCASTLE utd FC. not england FC. The FA do not help at all and often they will not move a premier game when england have yet another freindly 3 days earlier or later than a premier game.
the FA want it all ways as usual, and for once i agree with ferguson in as much as why should clubs be compelled to release a player for international duty? a club may have a massive game coming up a few days after an england game yet they still have to release that player for a game that can mean nothing. if i was a manager i would remind that player who pays there wages, as it certainly aint the FA. i am sure there have been many players injured while playing for there country and no compensation from the FA to that club concerned. there was a huge issue where newcastle were looking at suing the FA over the Owen affair but cannot remember what happened now.
you want the england team mids to play more or train more as a team, then look towards the FA to move a few premier league fixtures to accommodate that. the FA are nothing but a no good greedy bunch of peeple, who pretend that they are putting english football first, when in fact they do what they do purely for the money it brings in.
And I keep saying it is difficult to get the squad together more but I think that is what is needed, I didn't say it would be easy and I stated your valid point about what that can bring about in the form of injuries and tiredness for thier clubs sympathising with clubs as this has to be a consideration, which is why the only solution I could come up with was utilizing some of the closed season when players still need to train and stay fit, perhaps a 2 week England Squad camp could get together and train as they would on a club training ground together practicing working together, something that cannot always be practiced in friendly matches, perhaps even less friendlies and more "together training".
Quote by MidsCouple24
I would agree entirely, England has to be a team, made up of those hoping to get picked to possibly play, those on the bench, those on the pitch and the managers, coaches, physio's and the rest of the "team" that are necessary to get them on the pitch.
I believe that the players themselves can get too tangled up in just who is on the pitch, when Beckham got sent off the whole team spirit changed instantly and we were left with a team that already believed they had lost the match, the exact same thing happened when Rooney got sent off.
That's probably because it then became 11 against 10
And you don't think 10 motivated, self believing players can beat 11 men ? history tells us otherwise, the teams heads went down and another 3 subs on the pitch to make it 13 to 11 in our favour wouldn't have helped them on those days the defeatism was tangible.
When we played Brazil and Germany I blame the managers descision to have the players play the offside trap, all of Germanys goals came as a result of them beating the trap and when you do beat it your wide open on goal, it is a dangerous tactic at the best of times but can be effective, it is rarely effective against the best players in the world.
I have no idea as to which Brazil match you refer but if you are talking about the 4-1 defeat to Germany in the 2010 World Cup, you really are talking bollox. The 3rd and 4th goals came from German breakaways when England were actually attacking the German goal and the 1st ( from memory) was pretty much a combination of route 1 football and crap English defending.
Yes they broke away, but didn't have to break far as we were playing the offside trap and as soon as that was breached they had a third of the pitch to themselves and the goalie
The England players need to realise that they do not need to rely on any one player, United have been League champions so many times despite the pundits saying "what now that they have lost Cantonna, Schmeichel, Ronaldo, Tevez, each season they seem to lose what some consider the mainstay of the team but each season they do well finishing outside the top 3 seems to be a non-event (though it has happened) and usually it's top spot, why can't the England players learn from that, I believe that those left on the pitch after the 2 departures I mention were capable of winning both those matches and more to come sadly they didn't believe it.
Yeah but when Man U lost those players, they replaced them with others. As I have stated above when Rooney and Beckham were sent off it became 11 against 10 and Portugal and Argentina are both top sides. I wonder how many titles Man U would have won playing only 10 men every game?
Of course they were replaced but I don't think any Man Utd fan or true football pundit would say the subsequent replacements are as good as they replaced, Schmeichal was possibly the best keeper I have ever seen scoring 8 goals himself in his career and motivating the rest of the team substantialy, Cantonna was a playmaker of unquestionable ability, his play resulted in goals from defenders and even Gary Nevilles first ever top flight goal, his ability to put players in a position where they could not miss was magnificent and it is hard to defend against a possible 8 or more strikers which is what he turned the rest of the team into at times, Ronaldo would be hard to replace with an equal at any club and continues to go from strength to strength. I don't think anyone would swap Ronaldo for Tevez or Berbatov as Utd had to, and while I am on that Van der Saar was another great loss to United that they still haven't replaced with an equal and probably won't for a long time.
You totally miss my point. They didn't have to play with reduced numbers by virtue of losing these players as England did when Rooney and Beckham were sent off.
Quote by Max777
So you don't think that the England squad playing more games as a team will improve thier ability as a team, you really think that ?
And with that stated you really think it is me that is talking bollox ?
Because that is what I have been saying all along and my only reference to how many matches are played was to say that this is why it is difficult for them to train together as an England squad, because during the football season I believe they are either going to be playing or being rested by the coach/manager and why I think getting them together outside of the season should be looked at.
What you have been saying all along are things such as:
"Remember when England could choose the great Manchester Squad of Charlton, Stiles and co"
"That same squad included 2 members of Leeds United who were
Terry Cooper
Jack Charlton "
"Now of course that was the squad picked for the England Team and only 11 + subs got on the pitch for the 1966 win but my point is that so many players played for the same team and were eligible and chosen for the squad."
"but my point is that back then the players played far less competitive matches than they do today"
all of which are incorrect.
What I said or tried to say was that when the manager can select more players from one club it is easier to get a team that gels together, that was easier in the past when clubs could employ less foreign players than they can now, I have seen days when only 1 or 2 of the team on the pitch would be eligible for England or even British National Teams especially at Chelsea and Arsenal in the past, I am not saying that is a bad thing but I am saying what I just said, it is harder now to put more players from the same team together and it would help if they could.
And Yes that squad did play for England back in the 60s, not all at the same time and not all were chosen to play at the same time even when they were available, but the option for more players from one English team was there, nobody can deny the amount of English players playing in the top English league then compared with the number now playing because of the increase in forgein players allowed on the pitch at one time.
I have not said that I don't think that the England squad playing more games as a team will improve their ability as a team......to be honest that's stating the bleeding obvious, however it ain't going to happen.
Quote by MidsCouple24
What I said or tried to say was that when the manager can select more players from one club it is easier to get a team that gels together, that was easier in the past when clubs could employ less foreign players than they can now, I have seen days when only 1 or 2 of the team on the pitch would be eligible for England or even British National Teams especially at Chelsea and Arsenal in the past, I am not saying that is a bad thing but I am saying what I just said, it is harder now to put more players from the same team together and it would help if they could.
And Yes that squad did play for England back in the 60s, not all at the same time and not all were chosen to play at the same time even when they were available, but the option for more players from one English team was there, nobody can deny the amount of English players playing in the top English league then compared with the number now playing because of the increase in forgein players allowed on the pitch at one time.
The England World Cup winning team of 1966 consisted of 3 West Ham players ( average first division side) 2 Man U players and 6 players from other teams. ( Note that substitutes did not arrive in the World Cup until 1970)
There are indeed many foreign players playing in the Premier League today but back in the 60's there were a great many Scots players, not to mention the Welsh and Northern Irish playing in the first division.
In your second paragraph, you say " And Yes that squad did play for England back in the 60s, not all at the same time". Which squad are you referring to?
errrr the England squad perhaps I should have said team, shoot me, no matter what I say you will pick holes in it, you always do, discussion is good and I always try to create discussion so everyone can learn or voice thier own opinions but from what I have seen of your posts they are more about what you can google in order to make everyone else look wrong and you look knowledgeable about everything, do you ever actually get any alternative better ideas or solutions or is life for you just about making yourself feel more superior ?
What WOULD be your solution to improving our English Team ?
What WOULD be your solution to improving our English Team ?
Quote by MidsCouple24
errrr the England squad perhaps I should have said team, shoot me, no matter what I say you will pick holes in it, you always do, discussion is good and I always try to create discussion so everyone can learn or voice thier own opinions but from what I have seen of your posts they are more about what you can google in order to make everyone else look wrong and you look knowledgeable about everything, do you ever actually get any alternative better ideas or solutions or is life for you just about making yourself feel more superior ?
What WOULD be your solution to improving our English Team ?
Opinions are one thing but from what I have seen of YOUR posts, you constantly make claims which are inaccurate.
I haven't needed to Google anything in this thread, I'm old enough ( and knowledgeable enough on the subject) to know what I'm talking about.
When I don't know what I'm talking about I shut up. Maybe that's a lesson you should learn.
By all means state your opinions but if you blithely quote incorrect facts, expect to be corrected.
As for what I would do to improve the England side? Have you seen me criticise Hodgson's appointment? I'm prepared to give him a chance. When someone decides to pay me a couple of million pounds a year in order to provide a solution , then I will give the subject matter some thought.
What does need to be done is to educate the vast army of supporters who have totally unrealistic expectations of the England side.
Quote by Max777
What does need to be done is to educate the vast army of supporters who have totally unrealistic expectations of the England side.
you know max that is so true. but still thousands of fans up and down the land trawl sometimes thousands of miles to watch there national team. that is what a lot of the useless players need to appreciate, and the worst offender of that is " potato head " rooney. remember when we were dumped at the last world cup and the fans rightly started booing the players, see rooneys reaction? a man so deluded that his tiny brain could not comprehend the fans anger. very easy to dismiss them when you are worth millions from those same fans.
That's not what I meant Star. For whatever reasons, England are at best an average international side and yet at tournament after tournament the fans have high expectations of England winning. Maybe if their expectations, and those of the press, we're a little more realistic then England team managers wouldn't be given such a hard time when the team fails to win a tournament.
Fans can however, be expected to be justifiably unhappy if they feel that the players have not given their all during a match.
Fans can however, be expected to be justifiably unhappy if they feel that the players have not given their all during a match.
Average NO, fans having expectations and hopes, nothing wrong with that.
32 teams take place in the event. More actually go through the qualifying rounds to try and get into the final 32.
Of the 32 teams that reach the final tournament only 8 have won it.
The 19 World Cup tournaments have been won by eight different national teams. Brazil have won five times, and they are the only team to have played in every tournament. The other World Cup winners are Italy, with four titles; Germany, with three titles; Argentina and inaugural winners Uruguay, with two titles each; and England, France, and Spain, with one title each.
None of the other many clubs in the event have won it.
Brazil are no doubt exceptional and along with Italy and Germany certainly outstanding, but doing the maths I would say that the other 5 clubs have to be classed as above average, they are above average in qualifying for the last 32 let alone how you would rate them mathematically on thier perfomance against all the Nations who actually try to qualify.
They have reached the finals twice with one win and one loss to Germany, they may have reached the final again had the hand ball decision not gone against them in 1982, France and Spain with one win each like us have only reached the finals once, the years when they won it. Even Czechoslovakia have made it to the finals twice and anybody notice the lack of wins from Holland and Portugal here, though Holland did make the finals 3 times, Portugal have never even made the finals
Your maths are simply wrong and England are above average in the competition the facts cannot lie about that, not in the same league as Brazil and Germany but certainly able to hold thier own against all the other winners of the competition (yes even Italy) and do us proud in the top 5 of the World Cup Squads, can they win the next one, hmmm Brazil on thier own ground have to be favourites but they have lost a final in Brazil once before albeit back in 1950.
I say go on fans, have your high hopes, believe in them there is nothing wrong with that, defeatism will only lead to defeat.
32 teams take place in the event. More actually go through the qualifying rounds to try and get into the final 32.
Of the 32 teams that reach the final tournament only 8 have won it.
The 19 World Cup tournaments have been won by eight different national teams. Brazil have won five times, and they are the only team to have played in every tournament. The other World Cup winners are Italy, with four titles; Germany, with three titles; Argentina and inaugural winners Uruguay, with two titles each; and England, France, and Spain, with one title each.
None of the other many clubs in the event have won it.
Brazil are no doubt exceptional and along with Italy and Germany certainly outstanding, but doing the maths I would say that the other 5 clubs have to be classed as above average, they are above average in qualifying for the last 32 let alone how you would rate them mathematically on thier perfomance against all the Nations who actually try to qualify.
They have reached the finals twice with one win and one loss to Germany, they may have reached the final again had the hand ball decision not gone against them in 1982, France and Spain with one win each like us have only reached the finals once, the years when they won it. Even Czechoslovakia have made it to the finals twice and anybody notice the lack of wins from Holland and Portugal here, though Holland did make the finals 3 times, Portugal have never even made the finals
Your maths are simply wrong and England are above average in the competition the facts cannot lie about that, not in the same league as Brazil and Germany but certainly able to hold thier own against all the other winners of the competition (yes even Italy) and do us proud in the top 5 of the World Cup Squads, can they win the next one, hmmm Brazil on thier own ground have to be favourites but they have lost a final in Brazil once before albeit back in 1950.
I say go on fans, have your high hopes, believe in them there is nothing wrong with that, defeatism will only lead to defeat.
Quote by Max777
I wasn't aware I'd done any maths. In my opinion England are an average international side, if you think otherwise that's your prerogative.
The "statistics" you use have no bearing on the quality of the current English team.
i would say that since 1966 we have been nothing short of very average. 1n 1970 when many peeple thought we had a better side than in 1966 we were beaten in the quarters, and to be honest since then it has without a doubt been average, in fact as the years have gone by we have gradually got worse, where the last world cup we were frankly humiliated.
we have missed qualifying a few times but apart from bobby robson and sven i think the managers have been average at the very best.
Since 1970 the managers have been.
joe mercer= average at best
ron greenwood= absolutly awful
bobby robson= 1990 4th place in world cup and a good manager
graham ( turnip )taylor= awful
terry venables= euros semi finals and a average record
glenn hoddle= not very good at all, very average
howard wilkinson= average at best
kevin keegan= average and then quit when the going got tough
peter taylor= average
sven= funnily enough the manager with the best record
steve Mclaren= do i need to say anymore about this useless no hoper? could not even qualify for the euros.
fabio capello= for all his money in the end he quit like keegan, and had run out of ideas if he ever had any. a very average international manager
roy hodgson= yet to be decided.
so mids how can you say that england on that record are anything other than average? average managers will always only get average results. fact.
Quote by starlightcouple
I wasn't aware I'd done any maths. In my opinion England are an average international side, if you think otherwise that's your prerogative.
The "statistics" you use have no bearing on the quality of the current English team.
i would say that since 1966 we have been nothing short of very average. 1n 1970 when many peeple thought we had a better side than in 1966 we were beaten in the quarters, and to be honest since then it has without a doubt been average, in fact as the years have gone by we have gradually got worse, where the last world cup we were frankly humiliated.
we have missed qualifying a few times but apart from bobby robson and sven i think the managers have been average at the very best.
Since 1970 the managers have been.
joe mercer= average at best
ron greenwood= absolutly awful
bobby robson= 1990 4th place in world cup and a good manager
graham ( turnip )taylor= awful
terry venables= euros semi finals and a average record
glenn hoddle= not very good at all, very average
howard wilkinson= average at best
kevin keegan= average and then quit when the going got tough
peter taylor= average
sven= funnily enough the manager with the best record
steve Mclaren= do i need to say anymore about this useless no hoper? could not even qualify for the euros.
fabio capello= for all his money in the end he quit like keegan, and had run out of ideas if he ever had any. a very average international manager
roy hodgson= yet to be decided.
so mids how can you say that england on that record are anything other than average? average managers will always only get average results. fact.
You are quick enough to critise others for getting things wrong yet you say average, something which is decided by mathematics without even doing the maths, clever.
Well if achieving more than most of the Nations by even qualifying and beating some of the qualifying nations by getting further in the competition on more occasions than them is average, I would say being average would be something to be proud of.
Quote by MidsCouple24
You are quick enough to critise others for getting things wrong yet you say average, something which is decided by mathematics without even doing the maths, clever.
have i mids
you tend to get a bit tongue tied mids when your debates fall a bit flat. as max has pointed out already and something that has seemed to elude you, this is not about maths, it is about facts. you know mids those funny things that win or lose debates. 
Quote by MidsCouple24
Well if achieving more than most of the Nations by even qualifying and beating some of the qualifying nations by getting further in the competition on more occasions than them is average,
if you are ok with settling for " average " then fine. we have over the years had great players that shall we say have under achieved at an international level. the manager in many instances is the missing cog in a big wheel. apart from 2 managers over the last 50 years, the rest have not got those under achieving players to perform at anywhere near there club level. the current england team have a band of great players at club level, yet at england level capello as a typical example, could not get anything out of them. not having an england manager that speaks english does not help at all, and i despair at the FA's incompetence in appointing an english manger, who can turn average into good at international level. because for there clubs they are class players.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I would say being average would be something to be proud of.
:doh: do you settle for average them mids?
average = ordinary
ordinary = of no special quality or interest or somewhat inferior or below average; mediocre.
still settling for average mids?
well of course you would do where the england team and in particular it's managers are concerned. you have got to accustomed to average mids, and seem to have lost sight of that fact in this debate my friend. :thumbup: Quote by MidsCouple24
Yes I will settle for your definition of average.
do you accept " average " with regards to everything else in life or just football managers mids? for me to accept average at anything is an admission that you have settled for that. how strange as what about improving anything in ones life, or just continueing to settle for the average.
Quote by Max
So I was right then!
unless you are settling for average max, then we both are. :thumbup:
