We’ve had variable quality players over the years that have never quite gelled. Of course form and injuries come into that factor but surely a good manager is key in bringing all those variables together and making them gel?
management is what i blame for the failure of the national team,
mclaren capello erikson
all useless
i was gutted when allardyce had to go becuase of his stupidity as for the 1st time in a while thought we could be heading in the right direction
Fair shout, What the 3 of them were saying was something a lot of us probably suspected but shook out of our heads by assuming the manager had a grand plan. For as much as they quite obviously played like individuals apart from when Scholes was in the midfield and forced people to play together as individuals they were very good and that group of individuals got to three quarter finals. It's easy for us to say to an international manager to be strong and play your best players in a system that works when the press are so relentless and seemingly hell bent on negativity
I mean, on form, who would you have dropped to accommodate Hargreaves, Butt, Scholes, Gerrard, Beckham, Lampard?
The back four were actually incredibly solid and picked themselves our problem was creativity and Frank Lampards point about playing in South America or South Asia say and having climatised tiny footballers playing with energy is a fair one, especially when domestically our game is so fast and apart from one or two notable exceptions all of the national squad played in the domestic league. Which would also explain why foreign players playing in the UK were so happy to represent their country. Whereas for English players playing in England they saw it as a drag, which is a crying shame the game has become like that.
Imagine having a prime Scholes or Beckham to just drop into the side we have now
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Also, despite suggesting that our players didn't get out and play overseas to broaden their talents, none of the three players moved abroad during their England careers, and Lampard and Gerrard never even left the cities they grew up in.
They didn't hide from responsibility but they all gave the impression that club honours (which they all achieved) and their records of caps for England were what they are proud of. I know England haven't won anything since 1966 but all the while the players are more interested in how many caps they get than how many results the country gets things are never going to change.
Playing for one's country is less significant an achievement for a multi-millionaire with the ability to buy almost anything on the planet than it used to be in the 70s and 80s and early 90s (before the Premier League) when England were better and the Golden Generation were growing up. The modern footballer probably dreamed of money, cars, houses, super-models growing up rather than playing in a World Cup Final. It's just sad that this seems to be more of a problem with British footballers.
Sticking scholes out on the wing was the most idiotic piece of management ever. We've only had 3 world class midfield playmakers in forty years and he was the last one - so we stick him on the wing and wonder why he retires.
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Not that I disagree with your other points, but United didn't have to find a formation to suit Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes, among others. Fergie could buy players to fit his system. And they had the best left winger in the league, whereas England put Scholes there.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
Sven such a joke. How the hell did he get THREE tournaments? Farce. Players are not blameless but FA decision making a shambles as always. Also stil totally bemused as to how Hodgson was offered a 2 year extension after failing to do his job.
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Not that I disagree with your other points, but United didn't have to find a formation to suit Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes, among others. Fergie could buy players to fit his system. And they had the best left winger in the league, whereas England put Scholes there.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
United also had Roy Keane as the holding midfielder, whereas in the centre we had Gerrard and Lampard getting in each others way.
It is frustrating looking back, as England did have some very good players in the 2000s. If Rooney hadn't broken his foot against Portugal in the Euro 2004 QF, surely we would have won that match instead of losing on penalties, as he was arguably the player of the tournament up to that point...
The thing about that generation is that they were first choice players at the biggest English clubs, they weren't squad players or sent out on loan to small clubs. In the mid 2000s English teams won the CL twice in 4 years, and the English players were key members of the teams, but they were never moulded into a successful international team.
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Not that I disagree with your other points, but United didn't have to find a formation to suit Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes, among others. Fergie could buy players to fit his system. And they had the best left winger in the league, whereas England put Scholes there.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
Could also argue some 4-4-2s from back then would be called 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 today. A team with one striker dropping deep, two CMs holding and two attacking wide midfielders could be called any of those formations.
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Not that I disagree with your other points, but United didn't have to find a formation to suit Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes, among others. Fergie could buy players to fit his system. And they had the best left winger in the league, whereas England put Scholes there.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
Spot on. The answer was to leave one of them out - maybe even 2. Either that or change the formation. Playing Scholes Left mid was laughable.
Interestingly they talk of a 4-4-2 being used, and being part of the problem, but unless I'm mistaken that's how Man Utd played for most of the time the 'Golden Generation' were playing and they won everything in England and had, from memory, more players in the England side than any other club.
Not that I disagree with your other points, but United didn't have to find a formation to suit Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes, among others. Fergie could buy players to fit his system. And they had the best left winger in the league, whereas England put Scholes there.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
Spot In. The answer was to leave one of them out - maybe even 2. Either that or change the formation. Playing Scholes Left mid was laughable.
And Beckham was in there too - great as a right winger, perhaps less so high on three right and certainly no central midfielder IMHO.
The issue was up top too - Heskey would have been the best choice for a 433/451 in a way, but didn't score enough himself.
It must be disadvantageous (albeit understandable) that virtually none of our top players have any experience of playing overseas (of today's crop only Hart and Dier spring to mind).
Even though Spain are dominated by their big two clubs, they have just as many key players based overseas.
Comments
We’ve had variable quality players over the years that have never quite gelled. Of course form and injuries come into that factor but surely a good manager is key in bringing all those variables together and making them gel?
I mean, on form, who would you have dropped to accommodate Hargreaves, Butt, Scholes, Gerrard, Beckham, Lampard?
The back four were actually incredibly solid and picked themselves our problem was creativity and Frank Lampards point about playing in South America or South Asia say and having climatised tiny footballers playing with energy is a fair one, especially when domestically our game is so fast and apart from one or two notable exceptions all of the national squad played in the domestic league. Which would also explain why foreign players playing in the UK were so happy to represent their country. Whereas for English players playing in England they saw it as a drag, which is a crying shame the game has become like that.
Imagine having a prime Scholes or Beckham to just drop into the side we have now
Also, despite suggesting that our players didn't get out and play overseas to broaden their talents, none of the three players moved abroad during their England careers, and Lampard and Gerrard never even left the cities they grew up in.
They didn't hide from responsibility but they all gave the impression that club honours (which they all achieved) and their records of caps for England were what they are proud of. I know England haven't won anything since 1966 but all the while the players are more interested in how many caps they get than how many results the country gets things are never going to change.
Playing for one's country is less significant an achievement for a multi-millionaire with the ability to buy almost anything on the planet than it used to be in the 70s and 80s and early 90s (before the Premier League) when England were better and the Golden Generation were growing up. The modern footballer probably dreamed of money, cars, houses, super-models growing up rather than playing in a World Cup Final. It's just sad that this seems to be more of a problem with British footballers.
I think the other issues we faced still held us back but it's fun/ depressing to imagine what we could do with the fashionable formations we see today.
Roll on Russia...
The thing about that generation is that they were first choice players at the biggest English clubs, they weren't squad players or sent out on loan to small clubs. In the mid 2000s English teams won the CL twice in 4 years, and the English players were key members of the teams, but they were never moulded into a successful international team.
The issue was up top too - Heskey would have been the best choice for a 433/451 in a way, but didn't score enough himself.
Even though Spain are dominated by their big two clubs, they have just as many key players based overseas.