Andy Cole

We did also destroy Holland in ‘96 which you seem to have ignored. Like Rob says Hoddle seemed to have tweaked the squad and made them slightly better, also had the United kids coming through at the same time which helped.

comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by BruceAndPally (U8201)
posted 23 seconds ago
Red Russian - People forget (be it purposely or otherwise) how poor England actually were at Euro 96, could easily have lost against Switzerland and Scotland and scrapped by Spain on pens, as you said, it wasn’t an outstanding Germany, although they did have some great individual players.

England were fairly average, every game being at Wembley still irks me a bit too tbh, we’ve essentially had three tournaments in England (including the Euros just gone) and England have played all of their home games in London, it’s supposed to be the national team. Other countries don’t do this either, they travel around the grounds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You could say the same about England in 2021 though.

Poor in the group games but did enough to get through. Beat the worst German side since 2004 in the knockout stages and a very very average Ukraine side. Scraped past Denmark with a dive in extra time and seemed clueless against Italy after taking the lead.

The 96 performances weren’t great but I think the 96-98 team as I said before imo were a better group of players and better managed. Hoddle seemed to make some very good tweaks to the Venables side he inherited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why I didn't conclude that this side is better than the 96-98 side!

I do, however, think this England team is some distance from its peak. Many of the best players in the side are young and ought to improve with experience (Foden, Saka, Grealish, Mount) while we also have significant talents who are only on the verge of breaking into the team in the form of Bellingham, Sancho and Greenwood.

The problem with this current English side and the talent coming through is that it’s mainly offensive players and they can’t all fit. Hopefully we can produce some quality keepers and defenders too. Will be interesting to see who we appoint after Southgate too unless the FA plan on keeping him in the job for a while.

comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
We did also destroy Holland in ‘96 which you seem to have ignored. Like Rob says Hoddle seemed to have tweaked the squad and made them slightly better, also had the United kids coming through at the same time which helped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That Holland team was awful though tbf, they only qualified for the next round because of the one consolation goal they managed in that 4-1, then went out to France.

I agree with Robb about the squads though, I think 96-98 had better players, not just 1-11 but depth too.

Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 16 minutes ago
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro 2000 was horrible. England failed to get to the knockout stage

comment by Snooker_49 (U10665)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 16 minutes ago
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro 2000 was horrible. England failed to get to the knockout stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was much more exciting a spectacle though. Although I do accept when your team makes it far it can create its own excitement.

comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

96 was brilliant.

comment by Snooker_49 (U10665)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 16 minutes ago
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro 2000 was horrible. England failed to get to the knockout stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

England were shocking but it was a brilliant tournament for the neutral. In fact, two of the best tournaments in my lifetime have been World Cup 94 and Euro 2008 - and England didn’t even qualify for either.

comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 12 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by Snooker_49 (U10665)
posted 8 hours, 23 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 16 minutes ago
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro 2000 was horrible. England failed to get to the knockout stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

England were shocking but it was a brilliant tournament for the neutral. In fact, two of the best tournaments in my lifetime have been World Cup 94 and Euro 2008 - and England didn’t even qualify for either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've found over the years that I can 'relax' and appreciate the tournament as a whole more after the crushing disappointment of England being knocked out. If that's not just my subjective response, maybe it's not pure coincidence that 94 and 08 were 'good for the neutrals': is it because you were neutral right from the start?

Obviously, my theory falls down if you're not English, Clockwork!