Denmark-England (scores as usual)

Big Nelly

jubbly wrote:

No it doesnt. I stopped posting because you were really really irrating the crap out of me. I was making a simple point which you for whatever reason wouldnt accept.

A team might be good on paper but that mighnt translate to results on the pitch. FULL STOP.

England have some great players but they never perform at major championships. Its not the managers fault, its the english players fault. Dont blame sven. He has done very well.

The same goes for Spain, who have some great players but never perform at major championships.

Never preform? I wouldnt mind Ireland getting to at least quarter final stage in competitions!!

astrofool

England nearly always play badly in these friendlies, Eriksson knows they are virtually meaningless, and a good place to experiment, didn't he have training camps instead of matches a few times?

They lost to australia similarly a while ago, yet they are still top of their qualifying group, and will qualify for the world cup at a stroll.

You'd probably make good money betting on england to lose or draw any friendly they play.

county

therecklessone wrote:

Apart from the first part of that paragraph (cos I know it referred to a quote of mine) can I assume you meant the rest of yourcomment for others on the board and not me? Cos I'm far from gloating sunshine.

And no Ireland team would have rolled over away to Denmark in a friendly. We may not the best XI in world football, but we do have a manager who is professional, and who has managed to instil that professionalism in his players. Contrast with SGE...

I very much doubt that an Irish goalkeeper would ever have to make this admission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4161724.stm

People in glasshouses? Lay down the aul stones...

my dig is not with you,just to the anti-english posts

jubbly

Big Nelly wrote:

Never preform? I wouldnt mind Ireland getting to at least quarter final stage in competitions!!

Never perform compared to what they are rated are on paper. Getting to the quarter finals for us would be a huge achievement, getting to the quarter finals for England is expected because of their rankings.

The fact that England doesnt go on to the Semi's or Finals says a lot about the national side. Maybe its because club football is so important in England.

Jivin Turkey

therecklessone wrote:

So which is it? Not a good squad, or lacking a motivator? Cos if its the second, then you're basically saying its all SGE's fault. Which is everyone else's point...

Thank you. I really wanted to make this point last night but due to the futlity of arguing with this lad I thought bed would be a better option.

county wrote:

i agree with the comment above but irish football is crap with a capital C and i must admit england were poor tonight,no excuses,but the world cup is a year away,a long time in football ,plus england are pretty much there,ireland might not even qualify,so gloat all you like now ,i will be still here when you dont ,what goes around comes around

Im not the type that cheers Englands opposition, in fact I like watching England.

But your post is an indication of why Irish people like seeing England lose.

jubbly wrote:

Never perform compared to what they are rated are on paper. Getting to the quarter finals for us would be a huge achievement, getting to the quarter finals for England is expected because of their rankings.

But going by our rankings (14th) we should be getting to the last 16 of every WC and QFs of every EC. The reality of it is Id be delighted with even qualifying!

England are ranked 7th, and regularly reach QFs of championships.

So who is overrated now?

jubbly wrote:

The fact that England doesnt go on to the Semi's or Finals says a lot about the national side. Maybe its because club football is so important in England.

England have qualified for the semis of tournaments twice in the last eight tournaments, reached the quarters of another two, last 16 once, groups of another two and failed to qualify for one.

Its not a bad record for a team ranked 7th in the world. In fact its a fairly fair relection on their ranking.

jubbly

Originally Posted by therecklessone
So which is it? Not a good squad, or lacking a motivator? Cos if its the second, then you're basically saying its all SGE's fault. Which is everyone else's point...

Sven has done a great job with England IMO. He reguarly gets the to the world cup and he cant be faulted for his planning and preperation. What the players do on the pitch is a large extent based on what they do themselves.

Ok, sven can pick some stupid tatical formations and put in some poor players. But all in all I think he has done fairly well.

The problem with England comes down to problems with the team. They dont play for each other. They are 11 individuals playing rather than one team. On paper they are good but playing for their clubs is probably more rewarding and they are unlikely to win anything at international level because of their attitute towards international football.

Even Pele cant understand why England havent won anything in such a long time.

But going by our rankings (14th) we should be getting to the last 16 of every WC and QFs of every EC. The reality of it is Id be delighted with even qualifying!

England are ranked 7th, and regularly reach QFs of championships.

So who is overrated now?

One is over achieving and the other is underachievening IMO. Ireland doesnt have a lot of world class players and it doesnt have many quality players in depth.

The players that do play all play for each other and I think its what helps us punch above our weight. We are ranked 14th based on results which is based on the way we play. Player for player we probably wouldnt be ranked 14th.

Personally I wont be delighted if we "only qualifying". We should top the group by right.

therecklessone

jubbly wrote:

No it doesnt. I stopped posting because you were really really irrating the crap out of me. I was making a simple point which you for whatever reason wouldnt accept.

A simple point. Thats it in a nutshell.

You're argument is bo**ox TBH. This is the best England squad I have seen since Robson took them to Italy in 1990. The problem lies with the coach. Every time England have come up against quality opposition in competitive matches they've lost. And thats despite the efforts of the players. SGE is clueles in the face of superior players and/or tactics.

He can't continue to play Beckham at RM.
He can't play Joe Cole at LM.
He can't play Lampard and Gerrard in CM without a ball winner behind them.
He needs to give Jermain Defoe a meaningful chance to develop a partnership with Rooney instead of a poxy 45 minutes vefore another one of his favourites was brought on.

England have had two decent managers since Robson left, Venables and Hoddle. venables reached the semi-final of Euro 96 before being defeated on penos, Hoddle reached the QF of the 1998 WC (which we weren't at), losing on penos to Argentina after Beckham got sent off for a petulant kick at Simeone and Campbell had a perfectly good goal disallowed. Both managers lost their job for non-football related incidents.

jubbly

I dont know if I can agree with you therecklessone.

I dont think it is all Svens problems. I think its just england and english players that are the problem. A new manger might help but I cant see it making a difference tbh.

Its same old England Imo. Some very good players but no one playing for each other.

therecklessone

astrofool wrote:

England nearly always play badly in these friendlies, Eriksson knows they are virtually meaningless, and a good place to experiment

I agree. So why not experiment?

Downing played for the u-21s the previous night, why not the senior team? Why not leave Jermain Defoe on for 90 minutes instead of bringing on Owen. Its not like we don't know what he's capable of. Sven's excuse was he knew Defoe would play games between now and the two qualifiers, and wasn't sure of Owen would. Thats tosh. 45 minutes isn't gonna make a blind bit of difference for Owen, all Sven did by making the switch last night was to confirm that no matter what each player does this season, he'll favour Owen over Defoe all the time.

Why did Beckham play the full game? Do we not know what he's (in)capable of? Why wasn't Carrick playing, why not have him in a holding role behind Lampard and Gerrard? Why not try 4-3-3 with the players that were available? SWP should have started. Jenas deserved more than 10 minutes. Hargreaves didn't even deserve a place on the bench.

Ah here, why am I getting worked up about England?

Pigman II

England have played 54 games under Eriksson

Competitive = 20-7-2

Friendlies = 10-8-7

And that's just about all you need to read into their 4-1 last night!

~Rebel~

would love to see Sven try something a little different if he insists on playing all his favourites..

perhaps:

---

Owen

---

--Roony

---

SWP

---

Lampard---Gerrard

---

---

Carrick

---

Cole

---

CB---CB

---

Neville

---

Robinson

---

Not gonna bother trying to pick CB's, any 2 of Terry, Rio, Sol, Carragher

Quite Man U/Chelsea esque but it allows his fav players to play where they might actually perform together.

He would probably swap SWP with Beckham and have him more midfield then attacking midfield.

---

Owen
---Roony

---

Beckham

---

Lampard-- Gerrard

---

Carrick

What do yee think of these? Could start with teh second option and switch to the first if need a bit more potency in attack, or vice versa.

mike65

I hav'nt seen a second of the game, but it seems to me that Lampard and Gerrad simply cannot play on the same team together they want to do the same thing in ther same places , yet cos Sven dare not do the wise thing (drop Lamps!) Gerrard is asked to play a role to which he is totally unsuitable.

Carrick is defintly the man for the "Hamann" role, did SWP get a run out?

He clearly should have played Owen and Rooney from the off.

Oh an not played James but that does'nt need saying!

Mike.

eirebhoy

Jivin Turkey wrote:

But going by our rankings (14th) we should be getting to the last 16 of every WC and QFs of every EC. The reality of it is Id be delighted with even qualifying!

England are ranked 7th, and regularly reach QFs of championships.

So who is overrated now?


England have qualified for the semis of tournaments twice in the last eight tournaments, reached the quarters of another two, last 16 once, groups of another two and failed to qualify for one.

Its not a bad record for a team ranked 7th in the world. In fact its a fairly fair relection on their ranking.

jubblys's argument is stupid as its results that effect the rankings so if England were getting to WC final's they would be ranked higher than they are now. I agree with his main point though. England should be getting past QF's of the World Cup's. Only 2 or 3 countries could match the players at their disposal. They should be up at 3rd or 4th in the world. Given the players at our disposal we have probably overacheived at World Cups which is why Big Jack got a hero's welcome in O'Connoll Street.

Necronomicon

mike65 wrote:

Carrick is defintly the man for the "Hamann" role, did SWP get a run out?

SWP was injured. I wonder how they would do with a United/Chelsea-esque formation, something like:

---

Robinson

---

Neville

---

Rio

---

Terry

---

Cole

---

Carrick

---

---

Beckham----Lamps/Gerrard---

---

SWP

---

Rooney

---

---

Owen

---

Pepe LeFrits

~Rebel~ wrote:

would love to see Sven try something a little different if he insists on playing all his favourites..

perhaps:

---

Owen

---

--Roony

---

SWP

---

Lampard---Gerrard

---

---

Carrick

---

Cole

---

CB---CB

---

Neville

---

Robinson

---

Agreed, i've been an advocate of England using that system for ages now. Parker could replace Carrick in it though - he was outstanding against Arsenal and if he picks up where he left off at Charlton he'll have a far better reputation than Carrick by WC06.

I don't think it's a case of Gerrard and Lampard not being able to play together, more a case of them not being able to play with a holding midfielder behind them. They've produced their best form with Makelele or Hamann/Alonso sitting back while they go attack and grab the glory.

Jivin Turkey

Id also like to see England try that, the only problem is however could Owen really play the lone striking role?

Could any of their forwards? Rooney? Defoe?

Dare I say it, Peter Crouch?

impr0v

kaids wrote:

Agreed, i've been an advocate of England using that system for ages now. Parker could replace Carrick in it though - he was outstanding against Arsenal and if he picks up where he left off at Charlton he'll have a far better reputation than Carrick by WC06.

I think Parker should be in there too, once he gets full match fitness back.

PHB

Rooney has the ability to play the lone forward, infact did it for three months for United last season and played fantastic.

jubbly

I dont think my arguement is stupid.. i cant be arsed with this england thing anymore and if you want to think its stupid then thats just fine by me.

Nothing sickens me as much as England, Celtic and Rangers.

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Rooney has the ability to play the lone forward, infact did it for three months for United last season and played fantastic.

Rooney would obviously be the best candidate of himself, Owen or Defoe.

Mind you he never played up front on his own for three months last season. In actual fact I think it will be hard to find even a single game he played without one of Smith, Van Nistelrooy, or Saha.

eirebhoy

Jivin Turkey wrote:

In actual fact I think it will be hard to find even a single game he played without one of Smith, Van Nistelrooy, or Saha.

He started without those 3 in 6 games last season. Whether someone like Giggs played up front with him I don't know but he was the only recognised striker in 6 matches.

Jivin Turkey

eirebhoy wrote:

He started without those 3 in 6 games last season. Whether someone like Giggs played up front with him I don't know but he was the only recognised striker in 6 matches.

Three months it is so