England International Side Time For A Reality Check

[Talbotman]

is it just me or does anyone else get angry when reading the english press or listening to phone in programes on sky and radio and having to listen to the anti sven goran eriksen c rap which is constantly on there, mainly they say england have been blessed with a generation of great players but sven wasted them !

well i have known for a long time but after watching last nights game against germany it reinforced my opinion that basically england are impotent in the striking positions

nobody would argue that england in recent years have been blessed with some of the best central defenders and midfield players in the world but international games are won by teams with quality goalscoring strikers basically england have not had a goalscorer since allan shearer retired wayne rooney is a great player but not a goalscorer last night brought it home when they lined up with owen (a man who was struggling for form even before his last serious injury) and allan smith (who plays in midfield these days) even when the game was drifting away from them they were forced to bring on CROUCH (no comment) this is a big worry for england because when you look at the top teams who are challenging in the premiership the strikers are all foreigners the only striker on the horizon for england is Dean Ashton at west ham who has yet to play for england !

basically england are in danger of suffering what scotland went through 10 years ago when all of the spl teams were signing up 2nd rate foreigners and the young scots guys were not getting opportunities. i know englands foreign players are top class but they are still denying young english talent a chance to shine and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

just look at the improvement made by scotland since more scottish players were given their chance by spl teams (basically because of cash shortages they were all forced to improve their youth policies) ok we will never be world beaters but recently we were ranked as high as 14th in the world a huge improvement on their time under herr bertie vogts.


the fa are going to have to take action soon and restrict the number of foreign players in the premiership teams or do they want to pick their side from the championship teams .

[Nautilus]

Maybe bring on some strikers from the under-23 team ?

[Hobbsy]

i'm sorry - but the time has come to say Fvck International football. No one cares anymore.

People like the domestic leagues far more, why should these leagues be penalised to help the dull and lifeless Internationals.

Death to FIFA

[Talbotman]

SORRY hobbsy but cant agree there mate my interest in the scottish national side is 10 times bigger than kilmarnock or west ham it did my head in during the bertie bassett years when we were being beaten by almost anyone.

[IJ]

Originally Posted by Hobbsy

i'm sorry - but the time has come to say Fvck International football. No one cares anymore.

People like the domestic leagues far more, why should these leagues be penalised to help the dull and lifeless Internationals.

Death to FIFA

i agree with rob here.....international football is like watching paint dry !!!!
give me the club football any day.......ij

[Mav]

So what are you guts saying.........No World Cup ?

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

SORRY hobbsy but cant agree there mate my interest in the scottish national side is 10 times bigger than kilmarnock or west ham it did my head in during the bertie bassett years when we were being beaten by almost anyone.

I agree very much with your opening post here. I also wrote about this issue in my thread The Faith of Football Teams in Small Countries

In the rich top football leagues, like England, Spain or Italy, most of the key positions in the teams are taken by foreigners.
In secondary leagues, like Portugal, Holland, Germany and France there is still the option of educating your own youth payers, which will then be bought by the teams from the top leagues.
This results that the secondary league teams buy 2nd or 3rd class players from allover the world to fill up the gap. You cannot always do that with your own youth players.
Eventually, this will kill football IMHO.

Sure I like watching club team football, but I do like to watch National teams play as well.

[Talbotman]

EVERYONE to their own thing but watching scotland abroad like i used to do is an awsome expeience being part of the famous tartan army was a privilage which alas bertie basset finished for me.

club football especially the champions league (now there is a joke name) last years finalists were not champions in their own countries and that is a normal occurence for this tournament

it pisses me off (and i am not a celtic fan) that celtic as champions of scotland had to play a game against spartak moscow just to get to the champions league sections meanwhile chelsea as runners up in england (same in germany/italy/spain) go straight into the group stage why ? because scotland can only muster a tv audience of maybe 1 million and the other countries mentioned can get up to 10 million so its money talking here not status

[Nautilus]

Why not have a game where winners of all leagues in the world including those from maybe lower divisions fight it out for the Real Champs Cup?

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

it pisses me off (and i am not a celtic fan) that celtic as champions of scotland had to play a game against spartak moscow just to get to the champions league sections meanwhile chelsea as runners up in england (same in germany/italy/spain) go straight into the group stage why ? because scotland can only muster a tv audience of maybe 1 million and the other countries mentioned can get up to 10 million so its money talking here not status

Again I agree. It would be much better if the champions league is only for the champions as well as the cupholder, like it used to be. Since there are so many countries member of the UEFA, you can even have qualification rounds like there are now. Or create like three divisions with promotion/relegation. You can set it up according to the UEFA coeficient.
It is rediculous that with 32 teams in the group phase, there are 4 teams from England, France, Spain and Italy.
The Champions League should be for champions only and not for runners-up or lower.

[Hobbsy]

Originally Posted by Mav

So what are you guts saying.........No World Cup ?

I wish International footy wasnt sh1t but what was the last worldcup that you REALLY enjoyed?

mine was probably Italia 90'

[pablo]

What are you guys talking about?

You mean "soccer"? 555555

as in..."MTB Soccer League (Online game)" 5555

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by Hobbsy

I wish International footy wasnt sh1t but what was the last worldcup that you REALLY enjoyed?

mine was probably Italia 90'

I think mine was Mexico 86 and France 98.
Also liked Spain 82 because the Germans lose the finals... 555....

[Mav]

Originally Posted by Hobbsy

I wish International footy wasnt sh1t but what was the last worldcup that you REALLY enjoyed?

mine was probably Italia 90'

Mexico 86......The Diego Maradonna Show

But can't we live in hope ?

l think it's time for a Euro Super League myself


AC Milan
Chelsea
Barcelona
Lyon
Man Utd
Real Madrid
Porto
Liverpool
Bayern Munich
Arsenal
Inter Milan
Celtic
Glasgow Rangers
PSV
Vfb Stuttgart
PSG
Benfica
Monaco
Villareal
Juventus
Roma
CSK Moscow

[IJ]

Originally Posted by Mav

Mexico 86......The Diego Maradonna Show

But can't we live in hope ?

l think it's time for a Euro Super League myself


AC Milan
Chelsea
Barcelona
Lyon
Man Utd
Real Madrid
Porto
Liverpool
Bayern Munich
Arsenal
Inter Milan
Celtic
Glasgow Rangers
PSV
Vfb Stuttgart
PSG
Benfica
Monaco
Villareal
Juventus
Roma
CSK Moscow

jees.wouldnt that be a money spinner !!!!!!!!!!

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by Mav

Mexico 86......The Diego Maradonna Show

But can't we live in hope ?

l think it's time for a Euro Super League myself


AC Milan
Chelsea
Barcelona
Lyon
Man Utd
Real Madrid
Porto
Liverpool
Bayern Munich
Arsenal
Inter Milan
Celtic
Glasgow Rangers
PSV
Vfb Stuttgart
PSG
Benfica
Monaco
Villareal
Juventus
Roma
CSK Moscow

Oops... you forgot Ajax Amsterdam. Won CL 4 times and is also #4 on the all time list Behind Real Madrid, AC Milan and Liverpool.

[Captain]

i prefered the old system: only the champion from every land. And straight knock out: no groups of 4 or 5. Your opponent was better than you on the home and away game, you're out. Now to much (TV) money involved from big countries, so they got all the advantages, no more surprises.
In the 70's my team played the final against Liverpool in Wembley, that is no more possible for a small country now.

[Dodger]

Why do England, Italy etc have 4 teams because of the strength of their respective leagues, Scotland has two teams, Ireland none I know of and Holland possibly two that could put up a opposition to any of the top 5 or 6 teams in England, Italy etc.

I still enjoy international football, it still has a place for my entertainment, not to sure about mis timed friendlies and because of the money in the leagues managers are not so keen and players not so patriotic anymore to want to play in a senseless friendly.

England are not the world beaters us english fill ourselves up on every major tournament but we lack a world class forward, someone other countries would fear. I do not judge the England side put out this week because of so many players crying off with injuries, but even saying that we would still be wanting in the forwards if we had been able to choose from them all.

[Allybabba22]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

it pisses me off (and i am not a celtic fan) that celtic as champions of scotland had to play a game against spartak moscow just to get to the champions league sections meanwhile chelsea as runners up in england (same in germany/italy/spain) go straight into the group stage why ? because scotland can only muster a tv audience of maybe 1 million and the other countries mentioned can get up to 10 million so its money talking here not status

No it has nothing to do with the Tv audience, Actually I would bet that Celtic has a lot more supporters than Chelsea maybe double, Probably triple and get a much better Tv audience, But its judged on how strong the leagues are and how well the team has done over the last 5 years in Europe, And unfortunatly for Celtic and Rangers they have been consistantly poor in the Champions League and have failed to reach even the quarter finals, Actually they find it hard getting out of the first qualifying group and have failed to do so most of the time, On the other hand you look at how many Spanish, Italian and English clubs consistantly reach the later stages of the Champions League, Last year it was 3 English, 2 Spanish, 2 Italian and 1 German team reached the quarter finals?

They want the best teams to fight it out in the Champions League and the best Clubs, No point having a League of Ireland side in the Champions League just to get whipped 10-0 on Aggregate by Ac Milan.. Who wants to see that?

Personally I really like the format for the Champions League and I believe Chelsea deserve there place in the group stages ahead of Celtic because they are a better team, And everybody wants to see the best teams fight it out for the biggest cup in club football!!

[mars]

Originally Posted by Allybabba22

Chelsea deserve there place in the group stages ahead of Celtic because they are a better team,

And the only reason Chelsea have a better team than Celtic is purely down to money.

A team getting relegated from the premiership gets more money than Celtic do for winning the Scottish league.

Celtic proved last season that on the night they can beat one of the best when they beat Man Utd in the group stage, they never got to the Quarters but they did qualify from the group which is about the best they can expect with their budget.

[marc26]

this is from a new fan of football and observing the banter on this board
now granted, all the leagues are disjointed so you dont get the same competitive spirit on the board, but i never saw so many posts with as much enthusiasm as when the World Cup was going on

[dawsey]

Originally Posted by mars

And the only reason Chelsea have a better team than Celtic is purely down to money.

A team getting relegated from the premiership gets more money than Celtic do for winning the Scottish league.

Celtic proved last season that on the night they can beat one of the best when they beat Man Utd in the group stage, they never got to the Quarters but they did qualify from the group which is about the best they can expect with their budget.

Do you think that if Celtic had an equal budget to Chelsea (I use them as you quoted them, but I could name any of 6 more English premier clubs), they would attract better players?
I don't think so. The Scottish Premier league is a Mickey Mouse league with only 3, maybe 4 teams that are any good. Celtic Rangers Hearts and Aberdeen(sometimes)
If a great player becomes available, he will sign for the English club above any Scottish club because he will further his career in the Premiership, but not in Scotland. (Henrik Larsson was an exception, but did an English club bid for him?)
Sorry if I have upset any Scots here, just saying it as I see it.
Celtic and Rangers should be in the English Premiership anyway. They are wasting their time playing the other no hopers in that league. How can a side improve playing dross week in week out?

[mars]

Originally Posted by dawsey

Do you think that if Celtic had an equal budget to Chelsea (I use them as you quoted them, but I could name any of 6 more English premier clubs), they would attract better players?

I don't think so. The Scottish Premier league is a Mickey Mouse league with only 3, maybe 4 teams that are any good. Celtic Rangers Hearts and Aberdeen(sometimes)
If a great player becomes available, he will sign for the English club above any Scottish club because he will further his career in the Premiership, but not in Scotland. (Henrik Larsson was an exception, but did an English club bid for him?)
Sorry if I have upset any Scots here, just saying it as I see it.
Celtic and Rangers should be in the English Premiership anyway. They are wasting their time playing the other no hopers in that league. How can a side improve playing dross week in week out?

Quick answer - Possibly yes - players these days will go anywhere if the money is on the table and one or two do actually sign for them now if they are guaranteed Champions league football but maybe just to put themselves in the shop window for bigger money elsewhere, if the money dries up in the premiership the better players will soon move on.

I know the standard of the Scottish league is nowhere near the standard of the premiership but why should Celtic & Rangers play in England, they are scottish football clubs and scottish supporters have the right to see the best in their country playing in their own country,

[nelsonone]

well England to me is a top 8 team but not much better..........the press obviously thinks they ae much better than they actually are but I'ms ure the punters know this in their heart of hearts despite hoping vaingloriously that the press is right and the team wil live up to the hype.....so Germany beat England isn't that the result the bookies had in mind!!

I think that the press are overenthusiastic to sell papers...simple as that

and that the average punter seems to think that because the Premier Leaugue teams are so good.....once again disputable if you look at Euro competition results.....the national team will be as well

sorry but take a look at the Premier League again and try spotting the English players....can get quite difficult to find one sometimes

[Nanook]

The fact that English, Italian and Spanish leagues has had quite a few teams has all to do with money. So they can buy the best players and therefore weaken other teams in other nations.

What also annoys me is the fact that in Italy and Spain, teams can have huge debts. For example, look at Real Madrid. They paid a total of € 76 mio for 3 Dutch players and another € 45 mio for a few others. Theysold only a few of their last years squad. Next to that they are know for having a total deficit og over € 500 mio. How could you spend well over € 100 mio when you have such a deficit all ready???

Here in Holland, every year the teams of the 1st and 2nd division have to present a balanced budget to the KNVB (Royal Dutch FA). If they have debts of more than € 5 mio, they have to present a plan as well of how this will be taken care of. They can usually only do that to attract sponsors or sell some players.

Due to this, there may only a few teams (Ajax, PSV) be able to compete with the bigger European teams.

[Talbotman]

MAVS idea is interesting but then when you look at his list of clubs to be in the league there are some interesting omissions

ajax

sv hamburg (bundesliga biggest support)

seville

valencia

theres just four to start

ally as usual we dont see things the same 5555555

the only reason the premiership teams are on paper stronger than celtic/rangers is purely down to MONEY if the old firm were to get the money that sky is handing out they would be able to sign top quality players by the way celtic are signing quality players and building for the future the team they put out against spartak moscow average age was only 23

regarding chelsea i hate to say it but they are only a top team because of the comrades vast wealth teams like man utd/liverpool/arsenal/totenham have a big tradition and history it was not so many years ago that chelsea were signing glasgow rangers cast off players robert fleck/john spencer/ so there is proof that money is important.

dodger agree with you 100% the reason for englands failure to win a major trophy was not down to eriksen but down to a lack of a quality striker

the last international turnament i enjoyed was france world cup 1) i was there 2)scotland were there 5555555555

[dawsey]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

regarding chelsea i hate to say it but they are only a top team because of the comrades vast wealth teams like man utd/liverpool/arsenal/totenham have a big tradition and history it was not so many years ago that chelsea were signing glasgow rangers cast off players robert fleck/john spencer/ so there is proof that money is important.

Sorry Tommy, but tradition or not, they have joined the big spenders long ago.
And the signings of Fleck and Spencer was done for footballing reasons, not because they were Rangers ex-players.
Of course money is important. You see the have-nots in the league will always struggle because apart from attracting the better players to compete, the fan base will leave without good players coming in and the club being successful.

[Talbotman]

BUT THATS just the point i was making roger celtic and rangers have a huge fan base not just in scotland and the uk but in australia/usa/canada/south africa they sell out all their home games celtic 62.000 rangers 52.000 but they still lag behind in the wealth stakes because of the sky tv money and the big money owners taking over the english teams

funny enough both celtic and rangers are basically owned by very wealthy men one who has spent his own personal money (david murray at rangers) and one who is tighter than 2 coats of paint (irish millionaire dermot desmond at celtic)

anyway funny how this thread has drifted off course as usual 5555555

what about englands lack of a quality striker (the original point) 5555555

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

EVERYONE to their own thing but watching scotland abroad like i used to do is an awsome expeience being part of the famous tartan army was a privilage which alas bertie basset finished for me.

One of the offshore lot in tartan army mode..

NATA Online - The Hong Kong Chicken

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

.......
anyway funny how this thread has drifted off course as usual 5555555

what about englands lack of a quality striker (the original point) 5555555......

I think that, being English, we've been realistic about our chances of winning anything since Euro 96; and that we should have won. Since Venables left the FA have not had the balls to appoint the best manager/coach available and have instead gone for 'decent chaps'.

What England require is a slitty-eyed killer who will make the tough calls and has already proven himself, what we end up with is Kevin Keegan ( FFS ! ). Another nice bloke whose only success as a manager was winning the 3rd division with City; how likely was he to bring home the World Cup?

When the FA were looking to replace Sven they trawled the lower reaches of the Premier League; Curbishley, Allardyce, McLaren, even Steve Coppell got a mention. There are two managers in that league who have dominated it for over a decade, Wenger and Ferguson, why not at least talk to them?

Until they throw the politics aside and appoint on ability and track record England will win nothing. The last two managers have had the best generation of English players in living memory and have won f**k all. The players all know how to win, they've all been doing it for years.

As far as that other hoary old chestnut about too many foreigners goes, I really don't buy that. For one thing, France proved that you don't need a strong domestic league to have a good international side. And for another, the grass roots system in this country would give any decent player every opportunity to prove himself.

To be fair to Plant Pot McLaren, he gave David Nugent a shot and if he was good enough he would play. If the players are not there at the highest level then they are not there.

[Nicke]

USA 1994, Sweden got 3rd.

Originally Posted by Hobbsy

I wish International footy wasnt sh1t but what was the last worldcup that you REALLY enjoyed?

mine was probably Italia 90'

[IJ]

spain 82.........some great football played there.....brazil,italians and the germans played soem beautiful football......ij

[Dodger]

I've decided I'm not going to take any notice of comments about Englands ability or world cup winning chances by BM's from countries placed lower in the DIFA international table, because they obviously do not know what they are talking about.

So as we rank only second behind Brazil, I'm not going to take notice of comments by Scots, Irish, French, Swedish etc BM's, I'm only going to listen to comments from all our Brazillian members!!

Goaaaaaaaallllllaaaaaaaa!!!

[sishow]

Best World cup............. Mexico '86

Great worldcup with some excellent matches that I can vaguly remember. But the main plus was the Pannani sticker album that I almost completed....... except for the then England Brayn Robson. I just couldn't get the bloody sticker, and my best mate at the time had 3 swaps of him, but wouldn't give it to me. Needless to say he wasn't my best friend at Euro '88.

Or maybe USA '94, as Ireland had a blinder of a worldcup and if it wasn't for some very dodgy fixture placements, they should of gone further!



As for Englands problem's. I think there is a problem where alot of the *star players are not actually good enough. There is also a factor where 'national heros' get to play far too long when they are past it, or not at all in form.

But the manager has no ball's, or some people have some 'info' on him!

[dawsey]

Originally Posted by Talbotman

anyway funny how this thread has drifted off course as usual 5555555

what about englands lack of a quality striker (the original point) 5555555

McClaren isn't exactly blessed with an abundance of great strikers/goal scorers is he?

Go through the list of his possibilities, and not one stands out.

Rooney........ has yet to take the game by the scruff of the neck and do what he is picked for. Scoring goals!! His record is pathetic in an England shirt, and Im not sure he even warrants a place in the team. He is in because there is nobody else, and just maybe he can bring his Utd form to an England shirt.

Defoe...... My pick, but both McClaren and Sven the Shagger don't pick him, so I wonder if they know something that I don't about this player. Also, Martin Jol is reluctant to use him as first choice at Spurs, so he isn't getting his chances.

Bent....... Never given a proper chance yet. He isn't a great striker anyway.

Nugent........ Dropped by Rednapp at Portsmouth and he wants rid of him after 3 games. Another not proved yet.

Ashton...... Possibly, but at 32yrs old hardly one for the future. Shame for him to break his leg last season on the brink of an England call up.

Owen....... Why was a player without match fitness and form even picked for England this week? I think he is past it now to be honest. Too injury prone, and his asset of pace has gone.

Smith......55555 he isn't an England striker let alone a midfielder. Why was he picked too?

Err, thats it. I can't think of anyone else. The cupboard is bare Tommy. England haven't got one, let alone two good strikers at the moment. I'm not even sure we will qualify for the next Euros either.