or to join or start a new Discussion

34 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

Young 30 man Squad.

Before major tournaments countries name 30 man preliminary squads before they name their final 23. Looking at a young England 30 man squad, and ignoring my natural negativity towards the England national team, looks like we could compete. I'm sick of feeling let down by England, but I know I won't ever stop caring completely. Quite a few good players didn't make it in to my 30 as well.


Goalkepers = Forster-Hart-Butland

Fullbacks = Richards-Bertrand-Walker-Kelly-Baines-Gibbs

Centrebacks = Smalling-Cahill-Jones-Shawcross-Caulker

Midfielders = Cleverley-Wilshere-Henderson-Rodwell-Shelvey-Powell

Wingers = Chamberlain-Johnson-Ince-Zaha-Young

Forwards = Welbeck-Sturridge-Rooney-Carroll-Walcott


To be honest, I'd say only Germany have a better crop coming through. Having the players and the players doing something is a very different matter though.

posted on 6/2/13

i think the golden generation met expectations. they didn't fail.

they neither underperformed nor over achieved. They got the results the quality of the side merited pretty much spot on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted on 6/2/13

Arsenal written all over it.
----------
In other words, you've got nothing worthy of response to the sense I'm saying. No worries.

posted on 6/2/13

Kaiser

England were the best team at Euro 2004. The squad was a phenomenal squad, only rivalled by France. Had we had a manager that made proper use of Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard and the injuries didn't strike when they did, we could well have won that tournament. The same applies to WC' 2002.

The golden generation were a group of bona fide 'world class' - hate that term - footballers that have all spearheaded their clubs to the biggest honours in both domestic and European football. They underachieved, but I won't put it all down to the players. It was a variety of reasons. The main one being penalties! - which I guess is down to the players, actually.

posted on 6/2/13

no it sums up your comment as being happy with failure because you want attractive football. masking one for another.

posted on 6/2/13

No. If you can read it is saying that we need to get our priorities right for the time being. When Germany stripped their squad and revolutionsed their youth set up after 2002, it was so they could romp to victory at the 2006 WC'. No, it was so that they could bring a new kind of player through. So that they could play attractive football. Attractive football that TURNS INTO winning football. They failed at the Euro's and that very much is a failure for a squad that should expect to win these tournaments. But at least they've got the right idea.

I'm saying we need to do the same. And this won't happen whilst the likes of Carroll, Milner and Parker play in England teams. If these younger guys can capture the public imagination and 'do the nation proud,' it allows the players to build from that and target victory at a later point, perhaps Euro's 2016. We won't win the next WC. Expecting that is ridiculous. But if they can go there, play well and look to play progressive football then that's half the battle.

You speak as if we're a powerhouse of a national team. We're not, and haven't been for almost a decade.

posted on 6/2/13

for starters it it takes more than four years to revolutionize a country's youth set up.

So because Arsenal play attractive football this turns into winning football? Did jose play attractive football when he won with chelsea?

posted on 6/2/13

I think people got 'could have won' with 'should have won'

there were always sides better than us with better players. Many times a better manager too.

posted on 6/2/13

I think people got 'could have won' with 'should have won'........*mixed up

posted on 6/2/13

there were always sides better than us with better players.
-------
Not at Euro 2004.

Many times a better manager too.
-------
Say no more.

posted on 6/2/13

Did jose play attractive football when he won with chelsea?
-----------
Yes, they did. They just didn't concede many goals, whilst managing to score plenty. That Chelsea team being 'boring' in one of the biggest myths in PL history.

And again, I never said that attractive football automatically turns into winning football. But, it is a start. You won't win tournaments by playing 442 and crap football. We currently play like that, and that needs to change by playing more attractively, PROGRESSIVELY and by getting the public onside.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available