- This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
It has been said on the Radio 5 606 website that Mike Ingham, a football correspondent I usually respect has claimed that only one Portugese player (Ronaldo) would get into the England team.
If he did actually say it, it suggests that the tide of hysteria has reached a new high water mark and previously sensible commentators are losing their grip on reality.
England have thus far played football that has alternated between the farcical and the mind-numbing. They have stuttered through the easiest group in the competition and stumbled past an Ecuador side who seemed to freeze on the big occasion.
Patriotism and optimism are one thing. But surely, surely, anyone who knows anything about football cannot possibly claim that England have played anywhere near well enough to justify such a confident endorsement of their talents in comparison to the Portugese.
I noticed that Rio Ferdinand said yesterday that it didn’t matter how they won, all that people would remember is that they did win. He is wrong. This is the World Cup, not some grubby little domestic trophy. People do remember how well the teams played and they do make comparisons. The Brazilians of 1994 are remembered as a dull side lacking in flair. Had the Argentinians of 1990 won, they would have gone down in history as possibly the worst winners in the history of the competition.
Most of the people waving the flag and espousing the win at all costs philosophy know nothing about football or the World Cup, have no feel for the game and no sense of the significance of this greatest of tournaments. They might as well be supporting England at tiddlywinks or ten pin bowling.
For the record, I think the following Portugese players might just sneak into the England side
Ronaldo, Figo, Maniche, Pauleta (in the absence of a proven international goalscorer) Ricardo, Deco, Costinha, Miguel.
Finally, just to put this England team in context – though this squad is supposedly the most talented we have had since 1970, their performances thus far place them as the worst since 1970.
In 1982, they won all three Group games, including against France, eventual semi-finalists and soon to be European Champions.
1986, they stuttered to start with, but by the second round had thrashed Poland and Paraguay.
1990 saw them improve for a change of formation, hold Euro Champions Holland to a draw and beat Belgium in a decent game in the second round.
1998, they got better with each game and comfortably beat Colombia in round 2.
Even last time round in 2002, they qualified from the group of death and then spanked Denmark in the second round.
Still, they certainly couldn’t be accused of peaking too soon this time.
Don’t know about Portugal having adequate cover for both Deco and Costinha. I think they will struggle from a creative perspective. Gary Neville and Ashley Cole should have no problems with either Ronaldo or Figo. The teams were pretty evenly matched at EURO2004 and the absence of those 2 may swing it England’s way.
3/1 is huge for Portugal though (as is the 2/1 about Argentina beating Germany and the 4/1 about France beating Brazil)
Tiago and Petit are more than adequate cover for Costinha. I agree that they can’t replace Deco, though they may push Maniche further forwards. Can’t agree that they’ll struggle creatively. All of the Portugese players are good on the ball, they pass and move well for one another and they have an established international goalscorer upfront. England’s players look as though they’ve only just met and treat the ball like a hot potato that must be got rid of as soon as possible. I’m afraid that when it comes to creativity, I can’t see where on the England team it is likely to come from, especially if Rooney is expected to play as the main striker.
Neville and Cole may do well against Figo and Ronaldo, and are amongst the best full backs in the world (defensively at least) but I think to say they’ll have no problems is overstating it a little.
Agree about those prices though. I can understand the England odds due to the weight of patriotic (mug) money, but 2-1 for the best team in the tournament against a German side with a shaky defence? 4-1 for a French team packed with experience against a Brazilian side with an immobile centre forward and a brittle defence?
As I said at the start, the world has gone mad.
I think they’ll play Figo in the Deco role and bring in Simao to play wide, then bring in tiago to replace costinha.. If England could have picked one player to be missing i’m pretty sure it would have been Deco..
I think if they play 4-5-1 again they need to stop Figo getting on the ball. If they can do that it will stifle their creativity. Ronaldo will probably try and score several wonder goals and fail miserably and I don’t think Simao is quite up to it.. Defensively though I think portugal are underrated.. It will be a hard game and I wouldn;t be surprised if it went the distance..
i agree with the commentators and pundits are getting carried away but isn’t everybody else, you inlcuded ?
to say how we have performed so far is a mix between farcical and mind-numbing is a bit ott, imo. to say most people don’t know anything about football is a strange statement too as i’d imagine 9/10 have about the same level of knowledge/interest.
the problem with critics in this country is the need to negatively criticise. instead of being patriotic we’re criticising the manager, the team, the tactics, etc – rio is right to say the result is the be all and end all. like the moaners after the derby proclaiming sir percy wasn’t the best horse in the race, he won and his name is in the record books and he”l get the stud rights. england won the world cup in 66 but did that ball cross the line and would the result had been the same if it wasn’t given ? – don’t matter as they all have their medals and obe’s, etc.
i have had a sneaking suspicion england will win this world cup and i dont think they’ll do it by playing the most attractive football either. i can see a crouch and sven robotic duet after we’ve won and i can also see pundits either having to eat their words or more probably still knock the team, even if they do win.
it’s all rather silly really, we should all be behind our team, let them get on with their job however they see fit (i wouldn’t like it if they tried to tell me how to do mine) and hope.
if the world cup was for knocking yourself, we’d be invincible
That’s all fair enough about getting behind your country and all that sberry, but people are still entitled to their opinion about how the team is picked and the tactics that are used. England and Ukraine are the 2 worst teams left in the competition football-wise and yes you are right, England may still win it, but that doesn’t make football any the better for it. The only people who will celebrate an England win will be the English, just as the only people happy to see Greece win EURO2004 were the Greeks (if you like football that is). Nobody wants to see unattratcive football winning tournments.
Sberry
You express your views in an articulate way, but I have to disagree with you.
It does matter how we play. I think it matters because the World Cup is supposed to be the four-yearly pinacle of the game, to represent the best each country can produce. Like David has said, Greece won Euro 2004 playing the most mind-numbing football you have ever seen – it was bad for the game and it was awful to watch. As far as I am concerned, when I watch my club side, I don’t care how they win as long as they do. International football is different. When I watch our national team, I am watching a representation of English football, an advertisement for our whole game. I don’t want England to win at all costs. My patriotism is a form of football patriotism, that is a wish to be proud of English football, not England, not simply to cheer on a team just because they happen to be wearing the England flag. This is a sport, not a war. If England were to win the World Cup by playing as Greece played, I would not be cheering.
As for 9/10 people knowing about football, that simply isn’t true. Our office is festooned in flags and the number of people talking about football has at least doubled. But talking to them, it is immediately apparent that none of them have the slightest interest in the other teams, other than to compare them to England and I guarantee that when England go out, they will lose all interest. Quite frankly, it might as well be the World Tiddlywinks Cup for all they care.
Having said all that, I don’t actually think it is possible for England to win the World Cup without playing much much better, since they will have to beat Portugal, Brazil and Argentina/Italy to do it. So in effect, it is impossible for England to win the World Cup by playing badly. If they do win it from here, they will deserve it.
Even the manifestation of jamminess of an order hitherto unsuspected as being physically possibly would be insufficient to elevate this collection of England players and coaches to the status of Champions of the World.
I accept that they have players who, individually, rank highly in the pecking order of the game’s heirarchy. However, together, and under the one dimensional guidance of the womanising Swede, they do not have anything approaching the nous required to beat, in three consecutive games, Portugal, Brazil or France and then Germany or Italy. It is indeed my opinion that winning any of one of those three encounters may prove well beyond them and I intend backing that opinion with hard cash to the degree that, should they amaze me by proving me wrong, I will be a very sorry boy indeed.
The hope, eagerly clung on to by Engerland fans as if it were the only remaining lifebelt floating on the surface yards from the Titanic, that the absence of Deco and Costinha will render the Portugese impotent is nonsense. Simao and Tiago are very able deputies and England will, I believe, be stifled in midfield. Scholari knows that if he can, to a reasonable degree, shut down the central midfield pairing of Lampard and Gerrard, as has been successfully done by lesser nations thus far, then Engerland’s only option will be out wide, where they lack pace and will therefore rely on a scintillating delivery from Becks (possible but probably only a 3/1 shot) or a fortunate bounce/deflection from a ball into the box.
Of course old Rooney could change the game if he’s on fire, but he looks to me like he’s at least half a dozen games short of his peak so I don’t particularly expect him to be the revelation the English are hoping for.
The key to their chance lies with the youngster Lennon and I suspect he’ll only appear when they already have a mountain to climb.
Big Phil will have their measure again as he knows that, while England have a few genuinely fantastic players, if he shuts them down by flooding the midfield and sticking a couple of men around Rooney then he’ll be well on his way to ensuring that the England WAGS will be able to return to the much more pressing matter of planning their charity evenings and OK magazine photo shoots without the added distraction of having their men stuck out in the middle of the continent playing in a stupid football tournament.
the England WAGS will be able to return
Why are they called "Wags"?
I would have thought "soccer ladies and groupies" would be more appropriate.
Steve
All very eloquent these muses and writings which make my contribution feeble in comparison, but i feel a supportive lampard for rooney similar to how viera helped out a lone thierry henry against the spanish will see England open up the Portuguese for a stylish win.
Probably pure optimism but as i see it, England and France seem to me to be the most under estimated sides at this stage of the competition.
If Rooney could have seen some of the humour in what those blokes were doing trying to wind him up, it would have helped him and deflated them a bit. I mean if he’d said something like, "Nice tries, lads.  I’d do the same myself in your shoes". Difficult with our national mania for football success, but if they could at least try to lighten up (not at the expense of concentration), I think it would be a great help. The weight of expectation is too much.
I’m not talking about vicious kicking, flailing arms and elbows, etc, but in fact, I think the whole team should be<br>reminded that all the players on both sides are bound to try the less dangerous or injurious ways of impeding an opponent, ON IMPULSE, so, for instance, when the Portuguese lad on the ground tried to tangle up Rooney’s legs, he should have shrugged it off with a laugh – particularly when a free kick is given.
When it came to the penalty shoot-out, the players need to psyche themselves up very rationally, by reminding themselves that penalties mean they’re in the box seat. If the goalie looks super-confident, even the Portuguese lad, it will be an act – and all the more effective the less they remind themselves. Penalties are expressly set up to give the kicker a major advantage over the goalie.
The harder the kick, the better. Really, there is no place for less than maximum power. Non-strikers are probably best advised to keep the ball on the ground, reducing the parameters for error. Then the only thing that all the kickers have to aim for is to hit the ball as hard as possible and avoid the goalie’s trunk and legs. But really remind yourself who’s in the box seat, as Ronaldo seemed to. With Gerrard’s kick, he should have tried to break the netting. But his mind wasn’t right. Of course, tired legs would affect some players’ penalties, but I’m inclined to doubt it with Gerrard, rightly or wrongly.
In fact, I think losing was a blessing in disguise. National megalomania would have reared its ugly head in no time, had we won (still a lingering legacy of empire), aided and abetted by the press, of course.
It’s an escape, and the people of this country mustn’t be allowed to escape from applying their minds to what an utter madhouse Blair has made of this country, by protecting the wallets of the very rich and Big Business.  <br>If I were the manager, I’d tell the players, "Beggar the fans! Don’t let them put you under pressure, for crying out loud. Like Churchill said of Hitler and the Nazis, they’re either at your feet or at your throat. One minute, your’e God, the next they’ll be barracking you every time you get the ball. And that’s your own fans!"
One day, when this country comes to its senses, with the far right in terminal disgrace, this country will produce a team that can win the World Cup.
The press think in cliches. Private Eye try to satirise them, but it’s not possible. And before long genuine experts get sucked in -like the pundits, the ex-players on the box, spouting rubbish about Ronaldo being too fat, past it, etc. Mostly it seems on the basis of his failure to connect properly with a bouncing ball right in front of goal. It was a difficult ball, but the ex-players should have pointed that out instead of joining in the press chorus.
Same with Sven. I suspect he was too unemotional for England’s purposes, but I can’t help laughing at the journalists who think on tram-lines, whose very stock-in-trade is thinking in cliches and either following or misleading the mob. Erikson was prepared to sometimes think outside the square, and for that he was pilloried. In the next breath, for some cockameeny reason, the mutts who reviled him for being courageously imaginative, would call him a coward.
An odd thought, but if instant video replays had been introduced, Argentina, instead of Germany, would have been in the final, as they should have had a penalty. Video replays would thereby contribute to counter the natural sympathy of refs for the team of the host country. I don’t believe, at all, that winning is everything, but I do think the score should be decided as correctly as possible, and that it’s more important than satisfying adrenaline junkies, who are only interested in the next shot of adrenaline, and beggar the rights and wrongs that eventually produce the score.
<br>(Edited by Grimes at 12:25 am on July 2, 2006)<br>
(Edited by Grimes at 10:37 am on July 2, 2006)
<br><br>I’m not sure what England need, but an expansion on dynamics wouldn’t hurt. As you say Grimes, thinking outside the box opens up all sorts of narrow minded problems.
In the game, Crouch gave away most of his possession and lost more in the air than he won and he’s 6’7"!!! Lennon was a nightmare for a defender, but was rarely used. Lampard may have scored a lot of goals leading up to the finals, but he was very much out of form, but still made the startup every game. It may have helped moral, but to be honest, he wouldn’t have been out of<br>place in our league……………………and we’re crap!!!!
England were dire in their play, especially in their Group, but in the game against Portugal, all credit has to go to their defence and their spirit when reduced to 10 men. Rooney may be a quality and very dangerous player, but if he had the brains of a rocking horse he’d be<br>dangerous!!!! This guy is a professional and should know the ‘rules’ of engagement by now and if he doesn’t, then perhaps somebody should enlighten him.
Anyway, I think the ref took a bung. The sending off of Rooney seemed a bit on the harsh side, whether it was for the feet or the ‘gentle’ push of Ronaldo, I don’t know and Lennon going down in the penalty area, to me looked worthy of a penalty. Sure he may have not needed much persuasion to go down, but as I read it, contact has to be made with the ball first.
As a side note, by association, surely the players wives also represent their country, Victoria Beckham wouldn’t have looked out of place strutting down the Reeperbahn. Compare that to the new wife of Franz Beckenbauer, Heidi Burmester and it puts the English representatives to shame.
In the past I’ve always been against video recordings, but now I think I’ve change my mind. The game has changed and with it so should technology. It’s wrong to expect one man and a couple of distant assistants to make snap judgements when the players are now getting so professional at cheating. Video recordings should be asked for and the penalties for dives and false injuries punished harshly.
To be honest, it’s embarrassing to watch and very difficult to defend against a narrow minded North American audience. Not that their opinion really matters anyway, they’re just jealous because it’s the biggest sporting event in the world and they don’t control it,LOL!!
What is really bad for me is, on Monday I have to go to work and face a very excitable Portuguese colleague, who will no doubt remind me what the score was on Saturday………………….many times.
<br>
The point of this thread was not that England couldn’t win the World Cup but that the hype about them and the England players was out of all proportion with reality. Our football was poor right the way through the tournament and yet people insisted on believing we were about to come good. Our players demonstrated time and again an inability to keep the ball, pass it and be creative yet they are continually lauded as world-beaters. (Ian Wright’s laughable suggestion pre-game was, ‘We should beat these’ – thus combining arrogance and a total lack of self-knowledge).
As I said earlier, I have watched every England World Cup campaign since 1982 and this was the worst. <br>We got exactly what we deserved and the fact that our finest moment in the tournament involved trying not to lose by getting everyone behind the ball from the 62nd minute speaks volumes.
Our players were capable in theory of reaching the semi-finals. Our team was not. Simple as that.
And as for Rooney, as one caller on our local radio station put it, "He kicked a bloke in the nuts – what did he expect".
Still, I’m sure everything will be fine when Mclaren takes over.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.