Engerland

cornerblock

meursault wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I'm an AFC Wimbkedon fan, I have no club loyalties concerning England

Yes I would argue that Lampard has never produced the same level for England and that the management often didn't have the balls to drop him.

You could say the same about Gerrard, or any other England player of the same era. Why single out Lampard? Who has been shown to be the most consistent English player in that period. Oh I see AFC Wimbledon. Is this a geographical thing, cos' he plays for the big rich neighbour!

Don't get the Lampard love in, he has been a passenger for the last thirty or forty England games I have watched. Who cares what he has done for club? He gets well overpaid for that.

I don't get comment's like 'love in, I thought we were discussing Frank Lampard's ability as a player. If you've not been overly impressed with him for the past 30-40 games then fair enough that's your opinion, but it's an opinion that could be levelled at many in an England shirt.

southdownswolf

As a Wolves supporter, it is my prerogative to expect my team to do much better than they actually will, then feel miserable and moan about it for ever more. Why should supporting England be any different? :?

lakesluddite

seanoconn wrote:

A couple of games ago, I'd given up all hope for England but with their new attacking flair, genious Roy Hodgson at the helm, the arrival of Andy Townsend, the fat kid pulling the strings, Stevie G coming back into form, my expectations are high!

Semi finals or better

I think you mean the arrival of Andros Townsend? Andy Townsend being the "three-quarters englishman who played for the Republic of Ireland" doing the co-commentary.

Don't go there...

seanoconn

LakesLuddite wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

A couple of games ago, I'd given up all hope for England but with their new attacking flair, genious Roy Hodgson at the helm, the arrival of Andy Townsend, the fat kid pulling the strings, Stevie G coming back into form, my expectations are high!

Semi finals or better

I think you mean the arrival of Andros Townsend? Andy Townsend being the "three-quarters englishman who played for the Republic of Ireland" doing the co-commentary.

Don't go there...

Whoosh!

Although my wife did comment that Andy Townsend was doing well, until I pointed out that he'd been retired for ten years, played for a different country and was commentating at the time.

joelsim

You lot have low expectations, of course we're going to win it!!

To be honest I was a bit sceptical about Roy in the first few games, I don't think I've ever seen an England team play as badly as we did against Italy last year, not even under the Turnip or the Wally.

But he has brought a lot of youth in and given them a chance. I would still retain Gerrard in the side, use Lampard as a sub for times when we need a goal in the last half hour.

The defence isn't great, although Baines IMO is now better than Cashley and should be first choice. I would also have Richards at right back, centre backs Jagielka and perhaps Jones.

Midfield would be Gerrard sitting as this is his most effective position, he can control a game like no other English player can, and he would not have to use his energy running up and down at his age. Together with Wilshere and Rooney just ahead. 2 wingers Oxlade Chamberlain and one of either Zaha, Townsend or Walcott, Sturridge up front.

meursault

SecretSam wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Lampard (100+ caps! How!)

Well the simple fact is he has been one of the three best English midfielders in the past ten years, Gerrard and Scholes being the others.

Scholes was in a different class to both Gerrard and Lampard. Those two are very "English" CM players - box to box types (especially Frank). Scholes was a more Zidane-like player who could run a game and had the ability to do the unexpected - as well as get sent off for insane acts of violence on occasion

IIRC, Zizou picked Scholes as the best English player of his generation, and the only one that could walk into any team in Europe.

For me, the player who really made a difference last night was the much-maligned Carrick, who was at the heart of most of England's best moves.

And our biggest loss in the last few years has been losing Hargreaves to injury, as he was world class in his position and would have been an absolute cert in the starting XI, playing as a DMF.

It's an ongoing mystery, player bought by Ferguson in Man U CM, yet England hardly ever use him. As I was saying, Fat Frank gets to stroll about not doing anything for 100 caps. Never will get that.

heavymental

Quite enjoyed the game last night which hasn't happened much recently. We do seem to play better when we just go for it rather than the usual timid approach where nobody seems to want the ball. Thing is, last night we looked confident and played some decent football however, the next time we play we could easily look like frightened rabbits and struggle against someone like Algeria. The England performances never seems to follow a trajectory that makes any sense. Sometimes we'll have a couple of good games and then the next outing we'll look awful and be back to square 1. Course, we were only playing Poland last night where mistakes weren't really punished. Against a decent team we'll struggle and I don't expect us to make it much beyond the group stages.

After many years of disappointment I find it hard to get excited about a team playing terrible football with low skill levels and can never understand those people in the crowd shots jumping about and fist pumping when we manage to get a win.

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

I'm an AFC Wimbkedon fan, I have no club loyalties concerning England

Yes I would argue that Lampard has never produced the same level for England and that the management often didn't have the balls to drop him.

You could say the same about Gerrard, or any other England player of the same era. Why single out Lampard? Who has been shown to be the most consistent English player in that period. Oh I see AFC Wimbledon. Is this a geographical thing, cos' he plays for the big rich neighbour!

Hey! We're rich, just not in a financial sense.

This really isn't a Chelsea thing, another 100 capper, Ashley Cole, may be a tw@t but is also a great player and unfortunate to play for such a poor International team. Gerrard hasn't bossed International games in the fashion he has for his club but I'd pick him ahead of Lampard every time. Just my personal opinion that Lampard is very fortunate to be 8th on the most caps list.

Agree 100% re Cashley, never lets England down.
Lampard would have been 7th on the list if they hadn't handed out caps to a clothes horse.

spen666

meursault wrote:

..... Take a chance on youth, build for future.

Surely pick the best team for this tournament and try to win.

The FUTURE is always that, in the future.

meursault

spen666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

..... Take a chance on youth, build for future.

Surely pick the best team for this tournament and try to win.

The FUTURE is always that, in the future.

Not according the FA chairman and his new commission.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23969106

Pross

spen666 wrote:

meursault wrote:

..... Take a chance on youth, build for future.

Surely pick the best team for this tournament and try to win.

The FUTURE is always that, in the future.

Exactly. Sure, you need to be bringing youth through so that you have ready made replacements but if you constantly bring young, apparently talented players into the team and then they don't live up to that talent you end up going nowhere (see Wales).

meursault

Pross wrote:

Exactly. Sure, you need to be bringing youth through so that you have ready made replacements but if you constantly bring young, apparently talented players into the team and then they don't live up to that talent you end up going nowhere (see Wales).

Ready made repalcements? Sounds nice. This is not reality though. I am not sure about the comparison to Wales but England have been going nowhere for nearly sixty years.

To begin with, we need to look at successful other models

http://www.theguardian.com/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2012/dec/01/german-fan-owned-clubs-bundesliga

But even more importantly, we need to change the way grassroots is organised (Trevor Brooking is working on this).

At present, a Dad 'coaches' a youth team. He may have level one coaching at most, which the FA give you, for just attending. The Dad picks the fastest and strongest players, because he wants to win on Sunday. He does no real development or technique work with players.

What should happen (as in South America and Spain and Portugal) is less emphasis on team results and more emphasis on skill and technique.

Then have a pathway to promote the best talent through U!8, U20 etc like the Germans do. have less focus on the premier league and more on the national team. Then we could compete for trophies.

Tom Butcher

Well having had one of my kids in an FA academy I think people maybe have a rose tinted view of their coaching vs the coaching of dads.

Also it's just not true that England have been going nowhere for 60 years - we won it in 66' were one of the strongest nations in 70, had good teams in the 80s and 90s yes that had some luck but also some bad luck in getting eliminated by eventual tournament winners - we weren't the best but we were amongst the best.

Admittedly now we aren't - and haven't been for some time - bit that corresponds with the period our players have been coached from a young age. If there has been too much emphasis on athleticism and early developers (and I agree there probaly has) don't blame dads - blame the professional coaches and selectors for the FA academies linked to our professional teams as 99% of players havecome theough these from a young age - not picked up from local league teams at 16 as happened years back. More coaching will change nothing as the coaches part of the UK football culture.

With apologies for the ipad typos

meursault

Tom Butcher wrote:

Well having had one of my kids in an FA academy I think people maybe have a rose tinted view of their coaching vs the coaching of dads.

I would expect the coaching to be better in an academy, but sounds like it wasn't in your experience. Mayne they weren't qualified enough?

Tom Butcher wrote:

Also it's just not true that England have been going nowhere for 60 years - we won it in 66' were one of the strongest nations in 70, had good teams in the 80s and 90s yes that had some luck but also some bad luck in getting eliminated by eventual tournament winners - we weren't the best but we were amongst the best.

If among the best is the goal then fine. I think we should compete to win tournaments.

Tom Butcher wrote:

Admittedly now we aren't - and haven't been for some time - bit that corresponds with the period our players have been coached from a young age. If there has been too much emphasis on athleticism and early developers (and I agree there probaly has) don't blame dads - blame the professional coaches and selectors for the FA academies linked to our professional teams as 99% of players havecome theough these from a young age - not picked up from local league teams at 16 as happened years back. More coaching will change nothing as the coaches part of the UK football culture.

With apologies for the ipad typos

I hear you, what I was getting at, was a comprehensive coaching programme by qualified coaches, and a set up, to progress and develop the best players. I don't think it exists now, but is what we need. It is a cultural shift that is needed. No-cares that little Johnny Utd U9's won this or that league, apart from the Dads who are coaching them. There is something bigger at stake here. Children develop at vastly different speeds. When I was coaching a couple of years ago, I saw the weakest player in the team go to the strongest in one season. If you keep this player on the bench (as Dads in my scenario) will do, that player never develops, loses heart, and leaves the sport.

joelsim

Make all kids play on astroturf.

That will promote passing rather than lumping it over muddy pitches all the time.

finchy

Joelsim wrote:

Make all kids play on astroturf.

That will promote passing rather than lumping it over muddy pitches all the time.

It'll also stop them learning how to dive.

raymondo60

I still carry scars from sliding tackles made on astroturf in my youth......