Football - Euro 2020 Championship

munckee

UnclePsychosis said:

The only tournament I can think of where England underperformed was the WC where they lost to Iceland.

Every other tournament that I can remember - back to the early 90s - England have done about exactly as well as you'd expect them to. I'd actually argue that England are one of the most consistent teams in world football - it's just that their place is 'just below the elite'. What England do consistently is beat the diddy teams, get knocked out by a really good team. 

Anyone who isn't English (and even a lot who are) will tell you that England haven't had a truly world-beating squad for a very, very long time. The English media seems to think that club success - with teams based on a backbone of foreign superstars - and international success are related but they aren't, or at least aren't to the extent Sky would have you believe. 

I think I’d agree with most of that. 

Schnozz

Would have liked to have seen Bale put that one away

proggy

Schnozz said:

Would have liked to have seen Bale put that one away

He's back playing with the Spuds, remember.

MagicPigDetective

proggy said:

Schnozz said:

Would have liked to have seen Bale put that one away

He's back playing with the Spuds, remember.

Wales. Golf. Spuds.

In that order.

TeleMaster

UnclePsychosis said:

The only tournament I can think of where England underperformed was the WC where they lost to Iceland.

Anyone who isn't English (and even a lot who are) will tell you that England haven't had a truly world-beating squad for a very, very long time. The English media seems to think that club success - with teams based on a backbone of foreign superstars - and international success are related but they aren't, or at least aren't to the extent Sky would have you believe. 

Even the teams wirh Hart, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard, Rooney?

That was a squad that had a world class player in every position. 

I'm not English, I'm German. But I do support England first. I'm telling you, it's baffling. When I go to see family in Germany and we talk football I've had multiple conversations where my cousins will say oh they have an excellent team, they should get to the semis, the final, but it'll be the same old England again. 

The question is why can't they get it going?

Hattigol

Loved Hartson's neutrality:

'Yes, he's stamped on his ankle but that's a yellow card for me'.

Pillock.

proggy

Hattigol said:

Loved Hartson's neutrality:

'Yes, he's stamped on his ankle but that's a yellow card for me'.

Pillock.

Hartson was nothing but a talentless thug anyway.

sweepy

The Tournament would be a lot more interesting if only 2 rather than 3 teams progressed from the first knockout round 

UnclePsychosis

TeleMaster said:

UnclePsychosis said:

The only tournament I can think of where England underperformed was the WC where they lost to Iceland.

Anyone who isn't English (and even a lot who are) will tell you that England haven't had a truly world-beating squad for a very, very long time. The English media seems to think that club success - with teams based on a backbone of foreign superstars - and international success are related but they aren't, or at least aren't to the extent Sky would have you believe. 

Even the teams wirh Hart, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard, Rooney?

That was a squad that had a world class player in every position. 

All very good players. 

But take WC 2006. The Italian team that started the final was Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Materazzi, Grosso, Camoranesi, Gattuso, Pirlo, Perotta, Toni, and Totti. Not a single weak link. All world class. 

Opposite them from France was Barthez, Thuram, Makelele, Sagnol, Gallas, Viera, Abidal, Ribery, Zidane, Malouda, and Henry. All world class. 

"World class" players is a given when you get to the last eight, last four, last two at a World Cup. Its not enough---margins are very, very fine in sport. You can have a world class team without having a truly elite one. And that's England's 'problem'. 

MagicPigDetective

proggy said:

Hattigol said:

Loved Hartson's neutrality:

'Yes, he's stamped on his ankle but that's a yellow card for me'.

Pillock.

Hartson was nothing but a talentless thug anyway.

Super, super John,
Super, super John,
Super, super John,
Super Johnny Hartson.

Legend  

russpm

sweepy said:

The Tournament would be a lot more interesting if only 2 rather than 3 teams progressed from the first knockout round 

Yes, it’s seems bonkers getting through for being 3rd from 4 teams

proggy

sweepy said:

The Tournament would be a lot more interesting if only 2 rather than 3 teams progressed from the first knockout round 

Only the best four of the third place teams will go through.

proggy

It's really come to something when you make a genuine comment on here and you get ridiculed by some Toby who doesn't know the first thing about football, and refers to it as 'footy'.
I know thousands of proper, lifelong football fans and not one of them ever say 'footy' or 'soccer'.

munckee

UnclePsychosis said:

TeleMaster said:

UnclePsychosis said:

The only tournament I can think of where England underperformed was the WC where they lost to Iceland.

Anyone who isn't English (and even a lot who are) will tell you that England haven't had a truly world-beating squad for a very, very long time. The English media seems to think that club success - with teams based on a backbone of foreign superstars - and international success are related but they aren't, or at least aren't to the extent Sky would have you believe. 

Even the teams wirh Hart, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard, Rooney?

That was a squad that had a world class player in every position. 

All very good players. 

But take WC 2006. The Italian team that started the final was Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Materazzi, Grosso, Camoranesi, Gattuso, Pirlo, Perotta, Toni, and Totti. Not a single weak link. All world class. 

Opposite them from France was Barthez, Thuram, Makelele, Sagnol, Gallas, Viera, Abidal, Ribery, Zidane, Malouda, and Henry. All world class. 

"World class" players is a given when you get to the last eight, last four, last two at a World Cup. Its not enough---margins are very, very fine in sport. You can have a world class team without having a truly elite one. And that's England's 'problem'. 

But you are looking at it in retrospect.  Had England been in the final people would have been talking about when England had beckham, rooney,gerrard, etc etc. 

MagicPigDetective

On a serious note; totally elated that we’re through to the knockouts. Again. After decades of failure and pain (being at the infamous Wales v Romania match was traumatic!) this is our golden age. 

Springywheel

That was a more of a training session for Italy reserves, even before the red card. Wales unlucky on a few occasions though.  

munckee

MagicPigDetective said:

On a serious note; totally elated that we’re through to the knockouts. Again. After decades of failure and pain (being at the infamous Wales v Romania match was traumatic!) this is our golden age. 

No doubts you are a decent tournament team now.  I think when Bale and Ramsey have finished you may struggle but who knows. 

UnclePsychosis

munckee said:

UnclePsychosis said:

TeleMaster said:

UnclePsychosis said:

The only tournament I can think of where England underperformed was the WC where they lost to Iceland.

Anyone who isn't English (and even a lot who are) will tell you that England haven't had a truly world-beating squad for a very, very long time. The English media seems to think that club success - with teams based on a backbone of foreign superstars - and international success are related but they aren't, or at least aren't to the extent Sky would have you believe. 

Even the teams wirh Hart, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Lampard, Scholes, Gerrard, Rooney?

That was a squad that had a world class player in every position. 

All very good players. 

But take WC 2006. The Italian team that started the final was Buffon, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Materazzi, Grosso, Camoranesi, Gattuso, Pirlo, Perotta, Toni, and Totti. Not a single weak link. All world class. 

Opposite them from France was Barthez, Thuram, Makelele, Sagnol, Gallas, Viera, Abidal, Ribery, Zidane, Malouda, and Henry. All world class. 

"World class" players is a given when you get to the last eight, last four, last two at a World Cup. Its not enough---margins are very, very fine in sport. You can have a world class team without having a truly elite one. And that's England's 'problem'. 

But you are looking at it in retrospect.  Had England been in the final people would have been talking about when England had beckham, rooney,gerrard, etc etc. 

Bear in mind in 2006 the England squad was so elite that it included a 17 year old Theo Walcott on the basis of...nothing.

England had a good team in 2006. But anyone who thinks they had a squad to rival the likes of Italy, France or any of the other elite nations has obviously forgotten the existence of Wayne Bridge. 

Nitefly

UnclePsychosis said:

England had a good team in 2006. But anyone who thinks they had a squad to rival the likes of Italy, France or any of the other elite nations has obviously forgotten the existence of Wayne Bridge. 

I bet John Terry hasn't.

UnclePsychosis

Nitefly said:

UnclePsychosis said:

England had a good team in 2006. But anyone who thinks they had a squad to rival the likes of Italy, France or any of the other elite nations has obviously forgotten the existence of Wayne Bridge. 

I bet John Terry hasn't.

Proper lolled at that, well done