Naby8
"There was always the view that he missed a lot of chances, I’m not sure if that was true or not."
------------------------
Yeah it was certainly the first 6 months at Utd. He missed some shockers. I remember thinking he was gonna flop when he first signed for Utd.
Great finisher, bang average technically.
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 33 minutes ago
I know it’s fashionable to say this current England side is the best since 1966 but I think the 96-98 England side were much better. Had they had Denmark instead of Germany in the semis in 96 I’m sure they would have made the final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't an all-time great Germany side we faced in 96. We also only really scraped by Spain on penalties the previous round, and in the group games were pretty underwhelming against both Switzerland and Scotland. The Netherlands win was astonishing, and Gazza's beautiful goal against Scotland has erased the memory of a dodgy performance overall.
That said, I think we're a couple of elite central midfielders away from being able to say the current generation is better. I believe Bellingham will emerge as one, but we're still well behind the depth of quality Spain or Italy have.
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 30 minutes ago
Great finisher, bang average technically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I always thought of Cole too
Wasn’t a fan years ago as didn’t see the hype
Was a better version of chris Armstrong
Didn’t Hoddle publicly criticise Cole’s ability to score? Needing something like 5 chances to score.
He wasn’t as good as Shearer and on top of that Shearer and Sheringham worked really well together. Hard on Cole but it happens.
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.
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.
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 4 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 7 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought we were in control of the games at Euro ‘21 though, I don’t remember watching any of them thinking we were lucky to get by or we could/should have gone out.
From memory, we struggled against Switzerland in ‘96 and they had a great chance at the end which they should have scored, and Scotland hit the bar and missed a pen (I think) when it was 0-0.
I think in ‘21 we were a bit boring at times but pretty solid, in ‘96 we got quite lucky, imo, it’s then retrospectively been bigged up as a series of great performances.
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 4 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a patch on our Italia 90 team
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!
Sign in if you want to comment
Andy Cole
Page 2 of 2
posted on 14/10/21
Naby8
"There was always the view that he missed a lot of chances, I’m not sure if that was true or not."
------------------------
Yeah it was certainly the first 6 months at Utd. He missed some shockers. I remember thinking he was gonna flop when he first signed for Utd.
posted on 14/10/21
Great finisher, bang average technically.
posted on 14/10/21
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 33 minutes ago
I know it’s fashionable to say this current England side is the best since 1966 but I think the 96-98 England side were much better. Had they had Denmark instead of Germany in the semis in 96 I’m sure they would have made the final.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't an all-time great Germany side we faced in 96. We also only really scraped by Spain on penalties the previous round, and in the group games were pretty underwhelming against both Switzerland and Scotland. The Netherlands win was astonishing, and Gazza's beautiful goal against Scotland has erased the memory of a dodgy performance overall.
That said, I think we're a couple of elite central midfielders away from being able to say the current generation is better. I believe Bellingham will emerge as one, but we're still well behind the depth of quality Spain or Italy have.
posted on 14/10/21
comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 30 minutes ago
Great finisher, bang average technically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What I always thought of Cole too
Wasn’t a fan years ago as didn’t see the hype
Was a better version of chris Armstrong
posted on 14/10/21
Didn’t Hoddle publicly criticise Cole’s ability to score? Needing something like 5 chances to score.
He wasn’t as good as Shearer and on top of that Shearer and Sheringham worked really well together. Hard on Cole but it happens.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 4 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
posted on 14/10/21
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 7 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought we were in control of the games at Euro ‘21 though, I don’t remember watching any of them thinking we were lucky to get by or we could/should have gone out.
From memory, we struggled against Switzerland in ‘96 and they had a great chance at the end which they should have scored, and Scotland hit the bar and missed a pen (I think) when it was 0-0.
I think in ‘21 we were a bit boring at times but pretty solid, in ‘96 we got quite lucky, imo, it’s then retrospectively been bigged up as a series of great performances.
posted on 14/10/21
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 4 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a patch on our Italia 90 team
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
Euro 96 was a pretty average tournament overall if I recall. Euro 2000 was far better.
posted on 14/10/21
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
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 14/10/21
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.
posted on 15/10/21
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!
Page 2 of 2