England v Slovenia

ValleyGary

Tomorrow at 5pm.

Anybody going?

I know he's not the most liked player on here and comes in for a bit of stick, but saw this interesting stat on Rooneys goals compared to the other top scorers for England. He has a good competitive goal scoring record.

Shag

Yeah I'll be there , taking my son to his first England game

The_Organiser

Not going - sold my tickets but will be up Scotland Tue.

I can't stand the man but that aside am I right in thinking there are a lot more qualifiers these days and worst teams involved, hence why he's quite similar to Owen?

ForeverAddickted

Thing is there are more countries now than in Charlton and Greaves' day so the majority of matches will now be Qualifiers over the meaningless friendlies

Sonicstud85

Ill be in the wings bar after the welling match!

SheffieldRed

A lot more qualifiers these days. Further, there are more easy qualifying games than before. In addition, friendlies in the past were more meaningful and competitive.

Charlton was not an out and out striker, this makes his goal scoring record more impressive. Lineker had two solid tournaments of goal scoring. And Greaves, well he was the best English striker of all time. Statistics can show all sorts of things, but Rooney sits beneath these three.

Mendonca In Asdas

How long will it take before people are complaining about the state of the pitch..... :-0

NFL game 4 days ago played at Wembley, coined Wembley 7-9 million quid?

colthe3rd

I'm surprised, the "I don't watch England games anymore" mob haven't shown up in a thread about England yet. CL is slipping.

ValleyGary

SheffieldRed said:

A lot more qualifiers these days. Further, there are more easy qualifying games than before. In addition, friendlies in the past were more meaningful and competitive.

Charlton was not an out and out striker, this makes his goal scoring record more impressive. Lineker had two solid tournaments of goal scoring. And Greaves, well he was the best English striker of all time. Statistics can show all sorts of things, but Rooney sits beneath these three.

Wasnt around for Charlton or Greaves but weren't the games more open and high scoring back then??

paulsturgess

I wasn't around for Charlton or Greaves either but my perception is that back then (and to be honest even as recently as the 1990s) international friendlies were a lot more prestigious with full-strength sides put out and the games competed much more seriously and actively. Nowadays, half of the qualifiers seem to be little more than a training ground kickabout with rotation and players being rested - with some of the friendlies farcical.

So in reality, I reckon the goal-scoring records of Greaves and Charlton probably hold more weight as an achievement even though on paper they look like they're not as valuable.

Somebody who was about back in the 60s may correct me on that.

paulsturgess

Home Championships, for example, was a friendly tournament I believe but I imagine it was quite fiercely competed back in them days

bobmunro

I'm with the Greaves and Charlton backers - especially Greaves. Different times, different opposition, different tactics and probably more importantly different levels of physical fitness. But class is class.

I'd also put Lineker above Rooney.

colthe3rd

paulsturgess said:

I wasn't around for Charlton or Greaves either but my perception is that back then (and to be honest even as recently as the 1990s) international friendlies were a lot more prestigious with full-strength sides put out and the games competed much more seriously and actively. Nowadays, half of the qualifiers seem to be little more than a training ground kickabout with rotation and players being rested - with some of the friendlies farcical.

So in reality, I reckon the goal-scoring records of Greaves and Charlton probably hold more weight as an achievement even though on paper they look like they're not as valuable.

Somebody who was about back in the 60s may correct me on that.

Alternatively you could say there is less of a gap between the majority of nations involved in European qualifiers than there were years ago. Professionalism, training techniques, fitness have all brought the standard of the smaller nations up.

I'm not sure I'd agree that teams are rotated for qualifiers either. England generally put out the strongest team available for them as do other nations.

bobmunro

paulsturgess said:

Home Championships, for example, was a friendly tournament I believe but I imagine it was quite fiercely competed back in them days

Unbelievably competitive.

ValleyGary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_football_team_results_

The results in the 60's were crazy. England beating Scotland 9-3 for example. Just wouldn't happen now.

The Red Robin

ValleyGary said:

Tomorrow at 5pm.

Anybody going?

I know he's not the most liked player on here and comes in for a bit of stick, but saw this interesting stat on Rooneys goals compared to the other top scorers for England. He has a good competitive goal scoring record.

Saw this chart yesterday. Can't really argue with that. Smashes Charlton and Greaves out of the water for competitive goals.

paulsturgess

colthe3rd said:

paulsturgess said:

I wasn't around for Charlton or Greaves either but my perception is that back then (and to be honest even as recently as the 1990s) international friendlies were a lot more prestigious with full-strength sides put out and the games competed much more seriously and actively. Nowadays, half of the qualifiers seem to be little more than a training ground kickabout with rotation and players being rested - with some of the friendlies farcical.

So in reality, I reckon the goal-scoring records of Greaves and Charlton probably hold more weight as an achievement even though on paper they look like they're not as valuable.

Somebody who was about back in the 60s may correct me on that.

Alternatively you could say there is less of a gap between the majority of nations involved in European qualifiers than there were years ago. Professionalism, training techniques, fitness have all brought the standard of the smaller nations up.

I'm not sure I'd agree that teams are rotated for qualifiers either. England generally put out the strongest team available for them as do other nations.

Not for every game IMO and the Sterling incident just highlights the point - maybe I'm looking through rose-tinted glasses but my recollection of England international FRIENDLIES 20 years ago is that players would be desperate to play in them to get a cap for England and maybe even trying to rest club games to be fit for internationals... now they're dropping out of competitive international games to try and stay fit for clubs.

paulsturgess

And also, whilst fitness levels may have improved etc to bring the standard of the smaller nations up - we also now frequently play loads of smaller nations some of whom are the equivalent of small towns in England. This is a question not a statement, but were we really playing armenia, andorra, san marino in the 60s? I imagine more of our games were against more creditable football nations, so more competitive...

ValleyGary

paulsturgess said:

And also, whilst fitness levels may have improved etc to bring the standard of the smaller nations up - we also now frequently play loads of smaller nations some of whom are the equivalent of small towns in England. This is a question not a statement, but were we really playing armenia, andorra, san marino in the 60s? I imagine more of our games were against more creditable football nations, so more competitive...

no but they were playing Mexico (8-0), Luxembourg (9-0), Switzerland (8-0), Scotland (9-3), USA (10-0) and Northern Ireland (8-1) in the 60's and even in the 80's England were beating teams like Turkey 8-0 and 6-0.

paulsturgess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_football_team_results_(1960–79)

The only nation we faced throughout the entire 1960s you can scoff at are Luxembourg. We may have spanked Mexico and they obviously weren't the side they are now, but you just can't compare them with any of the European minnows. Most of those fixtures in the 1960s are against respectable outfits.

ValleyGary

paulsturgess said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_national_football_team_results_(1960–79)

The only nation we faced throughout the entire 1960s you can scoff at are Luxembourg. We may have spanked Mexico and they obviously weren't the side they are now, but you just can't compare them with any of the European minnows. Most of those fixtures in the 1960s are against respectable outfits.

What about Switzerland, USA, Northern Ireland??? they are 'respectable' now, but back then im not so sure. USA for example were probably part timers.

colthe3rd

paulsturgess said:

colthe3rd said:

paulsturgess said:

I wasn't around for Charlton or Greaves either but my perception is that back then (and to be honest even as recently as the 1990s) international friendlies were a lot more prestigious with full-strength sides put out and the games competed much more seriously and actively. Nowadays, half of the qualifiers seem to be little more than a training ground kickabout with rotation and players being rested - with some of the friendlies farcical.

So in reality, I reckon the goal-scoring records of Greaves and Charlton probably hold more weight as an achievement even though on paper they look like they're not as valuable.

Somebody who was about back in the 60s may correct me on that.

Alternatively you could say there is less of a gap between the majority of nations involved in European qualifiers than there were years ago. Professionalism, training techniques, fitness have all brought the standard of the smaller nations up.

I'm not sure I'd agree that teams are rotated for qualifiers either. England generally put out the strongest team available for them as do other nations.

Not for every game IMO and the Sterling incident just highlights the point - maybe I'm looking through rose-tinted glasses but my recollection of England international FRIENDLIES 20 years ago is that players would be desperate to play in them to get a cap for England and maybe even trying to rest club games to be fit for internationals... now they're dropping out of competitive international games to try and stay fit for clubs.

Sorry but the Sterling "incident" is a non argument.

SheffieldRed

We've won by 8 goals in the last couple of years, and smashed in 4, 5, 6 reasonably regularly of late.

The Red Robin

In Rooney's defence, international football is at a higher standard now. As others have pointed out, smaller nations in the 60s etc are now fully capable of giving any other international side a good game. Look at Croatia's B team giving Argentina a scare the other night, or the full Croatia side almost beating Brazil, in Brazil at a World Cup this year. Would that have happened 50 years ago? I think not.

Lincsaddick

why no Charlie Austin in the squad ? .. on current form he has got to be a better choice than Lambert who can't get into a struggling Liverpool team despite the injury to Sturridge .. perhaps QPR is too unfashionable or could it be the 'Arry factor ? .. it would be nice to see Berahino given a start in the friendly

paulsturgess

USA fair enough, Switzerland were playing in World Cups and it looks like Northern Ireland were giving us some games back then so weren't pitiful. I imagine there were a lot of Northern Irish players playing professional football in England. It was a different era so its hard to compare - look at Hungary, pony now but world beaters back then - but if anything I think the developments of modern football / resources / fitness etc have taken us further away from some of the lesser nations. I take your point but still reckon on the whole games in the 1960s were tougher than the majority of our games now

colthe3rd

Lincsaddick said:

why no Charlie Austin in the squad ? .. on current form he has got to be a better choice than Lambert who can't get into a struggling Liverpool team despite the injury to Sturridge .. perhaps QPR is too unfashionable or could it be the 'Arry factor ? .. it would be nice to see Berahino given a start in the friendly

I wouldn't have minded Austin in there and I agree with you on form but at least Lambert does give us an aerial threat that the other strikers do not have. I'd say Welbeck and Berahino probably just ahead of Austin and similar types of player.

SheffieldRed

The Red Robin said:

In Rooney's defence, international football is at a higher standard now. As others have pointed out, smaller nations in the 60s etc are now fully capable of giving any other international side a good game. Look at Croatia's B team giving Argentina a scare the other night, or the full Croatia side almost beating Brazil, in Brazil at a World Cup this year. Would that have happened 50 years ago? I think not.

They were part of Yugoslavia then.

Yugoslavia were World Cup semi finalists in the sixties.

colthe3rd

SheffieldRed said:

The Red Robin said:

In Rooney's defence, international football is at a higher standard now. As others have pointed out, smaller nations in the 60s etc are now fully capable of giving any other international side a good game. Look at Croatia's B team giving Argentina a scare the other night, or the full Croatia side almost beating Brazil, in Brazil at a World Cup this year. Would that have happened 50 years ago? I think not.

They were part of Yugoslavia then.

Yugoslavia were World Cup semi finalists in the sixties.

Henry Irving

ValleyGary said:

Tomorrow at 5pm.

Anybody going?

I know he's not the most liked player on here and comes in for a bit of stick, but saw this interesting stat on Rooneys goals compared to the other top scorers for England. He has a good competitive goal scoring record.

How are they classifying the home internationals in those stats?

thai malaysia addick

Henry Irving said:

How are they classifying the home internationals in those stats?

I would assume they are recorded as 'friendlies' which makes the stats difficult to compare.