egafd.com

It's not that he doesn't agree. He doesn't know enough of what he's talking about to make an informed decision either way so because he's from Scotland he just takes a pop at England.

Well, as I'm also Scottish you'd better throw some abuse this way too.

There are some pretty awful teams in the tournament---France and Sweden have been far from impressive, for example.

England used the "we play rubbish when playing rubbish" excuse before, explaining the defeat by Northern Ireland. As long as you keep winning, you will ignore some problems that do exist. For example,

Lampard and Gerrard are too similar to be played together

Beckham can still throw in some crosses (two assists so far), but what happened to his lethal dead-ball ability. Once upon a time a freekick was a certain goal. Against T&T he couldn't even get it past the wall

Relying on injured front men is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The first really cynical side that faces Rooney will be stomping down on his toes. And as for Owen, five hours of football in six months---is that really enough?

Your central defence is fairly solid, and you have a good keeper, and Joe Cole is playing well. But look at what happens when you need a substitute. Owen Hargreaves?

Being Scottish---and thus not knowing about football---my comments will be easily ignored. But you saw what the Argentinians had in reserve yesterday, what the Italians and Brazilians can call on if necessary. England do not, in my opinion (which means nothing), have that depth of talent.

I caught that film about Bobby Moore a few weeks back, and Jack Charlton was interviewed. He expressed surprise to Alf Ramsay about being paired up with Moore when there were much better defenders in the country than himself. And Ramsay told him that he wasn't the best, but he was the one that fitted the system best. That aspect of the manager's job is neglected too often in today's game.

The best teams have always been that---teams; not just some gifted individuals. England have played as a team very seldom under Eriksson. I didn't rate him much as a manager when he was working in Italy. He's one of those Emperor's New Clothes guys---a Souness, a Venables---who has everyone believing he's a manager because he says so.

(Oh, feel free to hit away---but try to be positive in demolishing my arguments. This isn't a case of "I hate England," but a view from a neutral who has seen your team's first couple of games)

Now that is a superb analysis of the England football situation.

Give Caractacus a job on the telly! The man knows his onions!

I agree. This is a comprehensive summary of England's main flaws at present. In any case, I am not anti-Scottish; far from it. I value well-put constructive criticism from anybody. I do not, however, value comments like 'England couldn't even win an egg and spoon race' when no case is made for why they're not up to scratch at the minute. On a wider note, there are some positives in your summary and you do make suggestions for how things might be improved. This is a far cry from the constant drone of 'England are f****ng sh*t!'.

Caractacus wrote:

Well, as I'm also Scottish you'd better throw some abuse this way too.

SNIP

(Oh, feel free to hit away---but try to be positive in demolishing my arguments. This isn't a case of "I hate England," but a view from a neutral who has seen your team's first couple of games)


=====================================================

I agree with everything you said.

Picking the best 11 English players and forcing some to play out of position or in a role that doesn't suit their game won't win a major tournament.

The manager has to pick a team that plays as a team, and if that means a "superstar" or two (or three) is dropped to make way for a player better suited to the overall balance of the team, so be it. Jose Peckerman has over the last 18 months discarded some of his big stars such as Zanetti, Demichellis and Veron, and brought in hungry, talented younger players.
Would that Sven had been as pragmatic.

Sven is reluctant to even substitute Beckham, let alone drop him, so when he plays badly/ineffectually we're in effect down to 10 men!

Gerrard and Lampard cannot play in central midfield together in a 4-4-2 formation. This has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt over and over again. One of them has to be sacrificed and a specialist holding midfielder, such as Carrick, brought in.

For all his height Crouch is not a target man to be fed high balls, and it's about time the other 10 players around him realised that. He prefers the ball to his feet, so why do we keep hoofing the ball up to him at head height?

Nor does he have the speed to run the channels, so why, when not hitting it long at head height, do we hoof it into the corners for him to chase?

One of the problems in the T&T game was the huge gap between the midfield and the forwards. Part of the problem was how deep the two centrebacks played. It was said if Terry and Ferdinand pushed up, that would push up the midfield and the result would be shorter and ultimately more penetrative passes being made, and a lessening of the likelyhood of giving the ball away cheaply.

But why are the centrebacks playing so deep? Without a proper defensive midfielder infront of them providing a shield, it's a natural instinct to hang back deep. With, say, Carrick in the side, everyone would feel safer pushing up a bit more, and the huge gap (and therefore the necessity to play the long ball) between midfield and the forwards would disappear.

The EPL may well be the most exciting league to watch, but it is far from being the best, as the tabloids (and others) keep trying to tell us. Thanks to over-the-top bids from Sky the clubs are able to pay over the top wages. The result is some of the highest paid players in the world... buy highest paid doesn't mean they actually ARE the best.

The young superstars of world football mostly ply their trade in La Liga and the Scudetta, not the EPL! Until English clubs play better football (rather than exciting football) we'll always suffer delusions of grandeur and claim that "this time we'll win it"

For fuck sake guys, they are top of the group having won all their games. A win is a win. Anyway, hardly seen anything 'extra special' from any of the other groups.



lol yea ya right mate argentina have been fookin shite havn't they!!! .i want us to go all the way but lets be honest we an't shown that we are world beaters have we ????

Very interesting comments. A breath of fresh air compared to other scottish views, whom just seem to 'have a pop' just for the sake of 'having a pop'.

I totally, totally, totally agree with you about 'not playing as a team'. England are a bunch of individuals, and play like they are. Having said that, England play as a team defensively, but not offensively, due to Mr Erikssons Italian mentality of, scoring a goal and then dropping deep. It just invites pressure.

Argentina, Spain and the Czech Republic have been the best teams so far but to be fair these teams played opposition who allowed an 'open' game. Both of Englands opponents just got 10 men behind the ball and stifled the game (with the exception of Paraguay in the second half who saw the heat was affecting english players and went for an equaliser).

I seriously think England have 'the best' defense in the world. Better than the italians even. In midfield only Brazil has a better line up. Ok Argentina & Spain come close but continental players are all the same. They're either really, really good, or really, really awful. British teams never have really good games, nor really bad games it seems. We seem more consistant. I just hope we can catch these teams on a bad day!

Englands midfield just needs more support from the full backs (or play 3-5-2, as that seems the obvious answer to involve Carrick and let Gerrard & Lampard play their own game.)

Up front we 'do' have problems, but France won the World cup with no strikers! Thierry Henry only scored 3 goals & Treseguet 1 goal all tournement. France's midfield & rock solid defence won that world cup, conceding only 2 goals all tournement. (only scraping a 1-0 win over Paraguay in the 2nd round as I remember!)

As for Becks, he's not scored a free kick for england in 3 years, I don't think he's scored one from a free kick for Real Madrid either this season. To be fair though he's come close a few times, and all through Real Madrids season he's very rarely got 10 yards from the wall from his free kicks & the refferees don't seem to mind. His free kicks against T&T were the same, he got about 8 yards on average.

Anyway, Chelsea, Milan, Barca, Man U, Juve, Munich etc have always played shite and still won in the past against inferior opposition. Isn't that the mark of a good team? Win when playing bad? In the past england have battered teams and lost on penalties or dodgy decisions, so I don't mind us playing shite a few games as long as we scrape through. It's worked for other world cup winners in the past!

The maths tells us england have more of a chance of going out , than winning it. So anyone saying england won't win is easy, safe in the knowledge the odds are stacked your way. It doesn't make that person a guru. Personally I'm only scared of Brazil & Argentina. I wouldn't be embarrassed losing to those two. Losing against any other team would be dissapointing though but with Erikssons style of football it makes me nervous.

talking sense as usual carac.

I think mostpeople have said a lot of true things on this thread - carac.sam etc....but it doesn't change the fact that unless we walk away with the world cup or being in the final/semis, then we have wasted a HUGE opportunity through poor organisation....The other day I noted that the youngest player on Englands team other than Rooney was Joe Cole I believe....25yrs old.(crouch is the same). Add 4 years for the next world cup and most of our players will be unto their 30s a bit - even gerrard,,lampard, beckham, etc. such a shame.....