comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
They've just been saying on the radio that Kane has played all but 14 minutes in the PL this season and is looking tired. I personally would have rested him against Iran for that reason. Probably worth considering it against Wales, given that we'd need to lose pretty heavily to go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d imagine Kane is very insistent on playing.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 2 seconds ago
My context with that comment is essentially making life difficult for yourself. Playing Holland in the last 16 rather than Ecuador/Senegal.
Like in 2010, top the group and you play Ghana, come second and you play Germany - our 2010 group was Algeria, USA, Slovenia - we came second and we’re gubbed by the Germans in the round of 16.
__________
This example is true, but most would say that we've been good at, or lucky with, making things easy for ourselves in recent tournaments. We've had a fairly nice route to the semi or final in the last two and we even engineered a group-stage defeat to Belgium in 2018 to avoid Brazil in the quarters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only time we have gone beyond the quarters after finishing second in the group.
In 2002 there was a route to the semi if we had won the group. We would have played Senegal in the round of 16 and then Turkey in the quarters before Brazil in the semis.
Instead we drew our final group game 0-0 with Nigeria despite us already being through and them being out so had to play Denmark who had won all 3 group matches in the round of 16 (beat them 3-0 and were brilliant on the day) and then had to play the Brazilians in the Quarters.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
They've just been saying on the radio that Kane has played all but 14 minutes in the PL this season and is looking tired. I personally would have rested him against Iran for that reason. Probably worth considering it against Wales, given that we'd need to lose pretty heavily to go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d imagine Kane is very insistent on playing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is England captain and despite why many think our best player.
However, we don’t need him to start against Wales, if the game is tight with 25 mins to go bring him in to try and win it
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
I just keep coming back to half time last night - Southgate did nothing to change the game - that’s my concern.
The last time I felt like this was after we had drawn 0-0 against Algeria in our second game in 2010 and Rooney was bobbing at the TV cameras.
2014 we just came up against better sides so I could accept it. 2018 we were already through at this point.
France 98 - I was on a school trip in Northern France so couldn’t get too bothered.
2002 we had just beaten Argentina and were through. 2006 we were already through - although the first 70 mins of the Trinidad game nearly killed me.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
Then you have
Argentina
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
He'll play the same 11 again, he never changes.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak England is finishing second in our group behind sides that we are better than and making life more difficult for ourselves.
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
Sweden I can forgive, but the other 3 haven’t played a World Cup semi between them since the 1930’s
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
_______
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but context is important:
86 - Poland were the seeded team in the group and England finished above them.
98 - Again, Romania were the seeds. We threw that game away but to say "we were better than them" is a bit simplistic.
02 - That was a real Group of Death. We ought to have done better in the Sweden and Nigeria games but Argentina were a top side and went out.
10 - No arguments there; we were absolute dross
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
_______
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but context is important:
86 - Poland were the seeded team in the group and England finished above them.
98 - Again, Romania were the seeds. We threw that game away but to say "we were better than them" is a bit simplistic.
02 - That was a real Group of Death. We ought to have done better in the Sweden and Nigeria games but Argentina were a top side and went out.
10 - No arguments there; we were absolute dross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The sides that finished above us at those world cups all lost their first knock out game - that’s what faaacks me off. Yet RB&W will tell you we are on a par with these sides - we’re not, we’re still miles above them.
However finishing second in the group is the number one reason why we don’t have a record more comparable with Argentina and Holland
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
Saka was not ‘awful’ last night. He went off the boil second half, yes, but he was one of our better players in the first half.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what game you were watching, but he was anonymous all match. He was not alone. Just making a simple five yard pass don`t make a player have a good game.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 5 minutes ago
The setup yesterday was amateurish. Any top coach goes out to beat the USA and then rotate against wales.
The whole mentality was abysmal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, I was getting pizzed off with the commentary saying England had to stay patient like Brazil did the previous night - what faaaacking games are they watching. We were on the ropes against the USA in the first half.
Then at half time - what did he tell them!! Because they were just as schitt second half until the subs which as per usual were too late in the day.
What last night showed me is that Safegate hasn’t learnt his lesson yet and he will still hold back rather than go for it in a knockout game.
I reckon he was secretly happy with that point as he knows we are basically through now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He should certainly rotate next game regardless. There will be players chomping at the bit to get their chance, perhaps one or two can force their way in to the starting lineup.
TAA, Rashford, Foden, Grealish, Wilson should all start imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is they are all much of a muchness. There are simply no stand out players that have to start. You could pick any of the 22 players to start, and they would all look much of a muchness. International football is pretty boring if the truth be told. Good club players look rubbish when they put the International jersey on.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 45 minutes ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England currently have no players near the quality of say Banks, Moore, Greaves, Charlton, Hurst etc.
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
However finishing second in the group is the number one reason why we don’t have a record more comparable with Argentina and Holland
___________
I get what you mean but we just have to do better in knockout games regardless. The Dutch team that reached the 2010 final had to beat Brazil in the quarters to get there. We just don't tend to win games like that, regardless of whether we won the group or not. And we could win this group, win the next match and still get someone like France in the quarters - and probably lose.
But still dont know what peak England means.
__________
It's just a phrase. It's semi-ironic. It kind of means "it would be typical of us, in a way we wish was not typical."
For those speculating about route through the tournament, it is likely that finishing second will give England an easier route to the semifinal than qualifying first, at the expense of a harder round of 16 game.
You can explore the options here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/bracket/
Obviously all speculation, but if France win their group, we avoid them by finishing second, but would play them in the quarterfinal if we won our group.
I make the likely route as follows:
Win group:
R16 - Ecuador/Netherlands (think Ecuador might win that group)
QF - Argentina/France
SF - Portugal/Belgium
2nd in group:
R16 - Netherlands (or Ecuador)
QF - Denmark/Saudi
SF - Brazil/Spain
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve played African sides 16 times at the World Cup and not lost a single one of them - we are dominant. No African side has ever made a World Cup semi - it is ludicrous to compare England to the African sides as they have never been good enough - mostly because their FA’s are corrupt and don’t funnel the money back into the game - also African qualifying is brutal compared to Europe and South America.
Argentina are not in the group above 2 World Cup wins, one on home soil and generally considered the lost corrupt World Cup ever. They cheated again in 86, but also scored the greatest goal ever - so I’m conflicted.
They made 2 further finals but I’m not having them in the same league as Brazil and Germany - their records are astounding - pre 2018 Germany had only failed to make the World Cup semi final once when Bulgaria knocked them out in the quarters of 1994. Brazil have only ever lost 1 group game. Just insane records.
Portugal haven’t ever made a World Cup final and have only made the Semis twice - they are a good Euros team and less than average World Cup side. I agree about Holland though, I will re revise the list to
Tier 1
Brazil
Germany
Tier 2
Italy
France
Argentina
Tier 3
Spain
Uruguay
England
Holland
Again, realistically we should be making the Quarters nearly every time and we could creep our average finishing place up to semi finalists if we start winning the groups more often and taking the easier path
comment by Flamini'sShirtSleeves (U8186)
posted 1 minute ago
For those speculating about route through the tournament, it is likely that finishing second will give England an easier route to the semifinal than qualifying first, at the expense of a harder round of 16 game.
You can explore the options here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/bracket/
Obviously all speculation, but if France win their group, we avoid them by finishing second, but would play them in the quarterfinal if we won our group.
I make the likely route as follows:
Win group:
R16 - Ecuador/Netherlands (think Ecuador might win that group)
QF - Argentina/France
SF - Portugal/Belgium
2nd in group:
R16 - Netherlands (or Ecuador)
QF - Denmark/Saudi
SF - Brazil/Spain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador have to play Senegal, Netherlands play Qatar - Netherlands win the group comfortably.
The reason your route looks like that is because you have the Saudis winning their group and Argentina finishing second - they won’t, Argentina will win that group and therefore make the path
Win group
Ecuador
France
Portugal
Second
Holland
Argentina
Brazil
I know which route I prefer
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
__________
Two wins (Cameroon and Egpyt in 1990). In terms of African teams, we also beat Tunisia in 1998 and 2018, and drew with Nigeria in 2002. Just from memory.
France are beatable as well, this isn’t a great French side given their injuries, Denmark beat them home and away in the Nations league. If Denmark win tonight and England win their group then the path to the final could even be
Ecuador
Denmark
Portugal
Get the faaaacking group won Gareth
Maybe we will draw with Wales and USA will do us a favour and narrowly beat Iran, so we'd still be top on GD. My prediction at the start of this group was that we'd go through on 5 points.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 20 seconds ago
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
__________
Two wins (Cameroon and Egpyt in 1990). In terms of African teams, we also beat Tunisia in 1998 and 2018, and drew with Nigeria in 2002. Just from memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct - most importantly we’ve never lost to an African side at world cups in 16 attempts
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve played African sides 16 times at the World Cup and not lost a single one of them - we are dominant. No African side has ever made a World Cup semi - it is ludicrous to compare England to the African sides as they have never been good enough - mostly because their FA’s are corrupt and don’t funnel the money back into the game - also African qualifying is brutal compared to Europe and South America.
Argentina are not in the group above 2 World Cup wins, one on home soil and generally considered the lost corrupt World Cup ever. They cheated again in 86, but also scored the greatest goal ever - so I’m conflicted.
They made 2 further finals but I’m not having them in the same league as Brazil and Germany - their records are astounding - pre 2018 Germany had only failed to make the World Cup semi final once when Bulgaria knocked them out in the quarters of 1994. Brazil have only ever lost 1 group game. Just insane records.
Portugal haven’t ever made a World Cup final and have only made the Semis twice - they are a good Euros team and less than average World Cup side. I agree about Holland though, I will re revise the list to
Tier 1
Brazil
Germany
Tier 2
Italy
France
Argentina
Tier 3
Spain
Uruguay
England
Holland
Again, realistically we should be making the Quarters nearly every time and we could creep our average finishing place up to semi finalists if we start winning the groups more often and taking the easier path
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we havent played African teams16 times in World Cups. It's 6. I also forgot to list the 0-0 game with Nigeria 2002 too.
See my previous post for England record vs Africa in World Cups. Never been beat, won 4 out of 7 but all hard close games. Not very good really considering how much better some English people insist we are/have been than African teams when it counts.
Sign in if you want to comment
4 goal loss
Page 3 of 5
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
They've just been saying on the radio that Kane has played all but 14 minutes in the PL this season and is looking tired. I personally would have rested him against Iran for that reason. Probably worth considering it against Wales, given that we'd need to lose pretty heavily to go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d imagine Kane is very insistent on playing.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 2 seconds ago
My context with that comment is essentially making life difficult for yourself. Playing Holland in the last 16 rather than Ecuador/Senegal.
Like in 2010, top the group and you play Ghana, come second and you play Germany - our 2010 group was Algeria, USA, Slovenia - we came second and we’re gubbed by the Germans in the round of 16.
__________
This example is true, but most would say that we've been good at, or lucky with, making things easy for ourselves in recent tournaments. We've had a fairly nice route to the semi or final in the last two and we even engineered a group-stage defeat to Belgium in 2018 to avoid Brazil in the quarters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only time we have gone beyond the quarters after finishing second in the group.
In 2002 there was a route to the semi if we had won the group. We would have played Senegal in the round of 16 and then Turkey in the quarters before Brazil in the semis.
Instead we drew our final group game 0-0 with Nigeria despite us already being through and them being out so had to play Denmark who had won all 3 group matches in the round of 16 (beat them 3-0 and were brilliant on the day) and then had to play the Brazilians in the Quarters.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 minutes ago
They've just been saying on the radio that Kane has played all but 14 minutes in the PL this season and is looking tired. I personally would have rested him against Iran for that reason. Probably worth considering it against Wales, given that we'd need to lose pretty heavily to go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d imagine Kane is very insistent on playing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is England captain and despite why many think our best player.
However, we don’t need him to start against Wales, if the game is tight with 25 mins to go bring him in to try and win it
posted on 26/11/22
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
posted on 26/11/22
I just keep coming back to half time last night - Southgate did nothing to change the game - that’s my concern.
The last time I felt like this was after we had drawn 0-0 against Algeria in our second game in 2010 and Rooney was bobbing at the TV cameras.
2014 we just came up against better sides so I could accept it. 2018 we were already through at this point.
France 98 - I was on a school trip in Northern France so couldn’t get too bothered.
2002 we had just beaten Argentina and were through. 2006 we were already through - although the first 70 mins of the Trinidad game nearly killed me.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
Then you have
Argentina
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
posted on 26/11/22
He'll play the same 11 again, he never changes.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak England is finishing second in our group behind sides that we are better than and making life more difficult for ourselves.
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
Sweden I can forgive, but the other 3 haven’t played a World Cup semi between them since the 1930’s
posted on 26/11/22
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
_______
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but context is important:
86 - Poland were the seeded team in the group and England finished above them.
98 - Again, Romania were the seeds. We threw that game away but to say "we were better than them" is a bit simplistic.
02 - That was a real Group of Death. We ought to have done better in the Sweden and Nigeria games but Argentina were a top side and went out.
10 - No arguments there; we were absolute dross
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
86 - finished behind Morrocco
98 - finished behind Romania
02 - Finished behind Sweden
10 - finished behind USA
_______
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but context is important:
86 - Poland were the seeded team in the group and England finished above them.
98 - Again, Romania were the seeds. We threw that game away but to say "we were better than them" is a bit simplistic.
02 - That was a real Group of Death. We ought to have done better in the Sweden and Nigeria games but Argentina were a top side and went out.
10 - No arguments there; we were absolute dross
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The sides that finished above us at those world cups all lost their first knock out game - that’s what faaacks me off. Yet RB&W will tell you we are on a par with these sides - we’re not, we’re still miles above them.
However finishing second in the group is the number one reason why we don’t have a record more comparable with Argentina and Holland
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
Saka was not ‘awful’ last night. He went off the boil second half, yes, but he was one of our better players in the first half.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what game you were watching, but he was anonymous all match. He was not alone. Just making a simple five yard pass don`t make a player have a good game.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 5 minutes ago
The setup yesterday was amateurish. Any top coach goes out to beat the USA and then rotate against wales.
The whole mentality was abysmal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, I was getting pizzed off with the commentary saying England had to stay patient like Brazil did the previous night - what faaaacking games are they watching. We were on the ropes against the USA in the first half.
Then at half time - what did he tell them!! Because they were just as schitt second half until the subs which as per usual were too late in the day.
What last night showed me is that Safegate hasn’t learnt his lesson yet and he will still hold back rather than go for it in a knockout game.
I reckon he was secretly happy with that point as he knows we are basically through now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He should certainly rotate next game regardless. There will be players chomping at the bit to get their chance, perhaps one or two can force their way in to the starting lineup.
TAA, Rashford, Foden, Grealish, Wilson should all start imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem is they are all much of a muchness. There are simply no stand out players that have to start. You could pick any of the 22 players to start, and they would all look much of a muchness. International football is pretty boring if the truth be told. Good club players look rubbish when they put the International jersey on.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 45 minutes ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
England currently have no players near the quality of say Banks, Moore, Greaves, Charlton, Hurst etc.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
posted on 26/11/22
However finishing second in the group is the number one reason why we don’t have a record more comparable with Argentina and Holland
___________
I get what you mean but we just have to do better in knockout games regardless. The Dutch team that reached the 2010 final had to beat Brazil in the quarters to get there. We just don't tend to win games like that, regardless of whether we won the group or not. And we could win this group, win the next match and still get someone like France in the quarters - and probably lose.
posted on 26/11/22
But still dont know what peak England means.
__________
It's just a phrase. It's semi-ironic. It kind of means "it would be typical of us, in a way we wish was not typical."
posted on 26/11/22
For those speculating about route through the tournament, it is likely that finishing second will give England an easier route to the semifinal than qualifying first, at the expense of a harder round of 16 game.
You can explore the options here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/bracket/
Obviously all speculation, but if France win their group, we avoid them by finishing second, but would play them in the quarterfinal if we won our group.
I make the likely route as follows:
Win group:
R16 - Ecuador/Netherlands (think Ecuador might win that group)
QF - Argentina/France
SF - Portugal/Belgium
2nd in group:
R16 - Netherlands (or Ecuador)
QF - Denmark/Saudi
SF - Brazil/Spain
posted on 26/11/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve played African sides 16 times at the World Cup and not lost a single one of them - we are dominant. No African side has ever made a World Cup semi - it is ludicrous to compare England to the African sides as they have never been good enough - mostly because their FA’s are corrupt and don’t funnel the money back into the game - also African qualifying is brutal compared to Europe and South America.
Argentina are not in the group above 2 World Cup wins, one on home soil and generally considered the lost corrupt World Cup ever. They cheated again in 86, but also scored the greatest goal ever - so I’m conflicted.
They made 2 further finals but I’m not having them in the same league as Brazil and Germany - their records are astounding - pre 2018 Germany had only failed to make the World Cup semi final once when Bulgaria knocked them out in the quarters of 1994. Brazil have only ever lost 1 group game. Just insane records.
Portugal haven’t ever made a World Cup final and have only made the Semis twice - they are a good Euros team and less than average World Cup side. I agree about Holland though, I will re revise the list to
Tier 1
Brazil
Germany
Tier 2
Italy
France
Argentina
Tier 3
Spain
Uruguay
England
Holland
Again, realistically we should be making the Quarters nearly every time and we could creep our average finishing place up to semi finalists if we start winning the groups more often and taking the easier path
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Flamini'sShirtSleeves (U8186)
posted 1 minute ago
For those speculating about route through the tournament, it is likely that finishing second will give England an easier route to the semifinal than qualifying first, at the expense of a harder round of 16 game.
You can explore the options here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/bracket/
Obviously all speculation, but if France win their group, we avoid them by finishing second, but would play them in the quarterfinal if we won our group.
I make the likely route as follows:
Win group:
R16 - Ecuador/Netherlands (think Ecuador might win that group)
QF - Argentina/France
SF - Portugal/Belgium
2nd in group:
R16 - Netherlands (or Ecuador)
QF - Denmark/Saudi
SF - Brazil/Spain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador have to play Senegal, Netherlands play Qatar - Netherlands win the group comfortably.
The reason your route looks like that is because you have the Saudis winning their group and Argentina finishing second - they won’t, Argentina will win that group and therefore make the path
Win group
Ecuador
France
Portugal
Second
Holland
Argentina
Brazil
I know which route I prefer
posted on 26/11/22
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
__________
Two wins (Cameroon and Egpyt in 1990). In terms of African teams, we also beat Tunisia in 1998 and 2018, and drew with Nigeria in 2002. Just from memory.
posted on 26/11/22
France are beatable as well, this isn’t a great French side given their injuries, Denmark beat them home and away in the Nations league. If Denmark win tonight and England win their group then the path to the final could even be
Ecuador
Denmark
Portugal
Get the faaaacking group won Gareth
posted on 26/11/22
Maybe we will draw with Wales and USA will do us a favour and narrowly beat Iran, so we'd still be top on GD. My prediction at the start of this group was that we'd go through on 5 points.
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 20 seconds ago
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
__________
Two wins (Cameroon and Egpyt in 1990). In terms of African teams, we also beat Tunisia in 1998 and 2018, and drew with Nigeria in 2002. Just from memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct - most importantly we’ve never lost to an African side at world cups in 16 attempts
posted on 26/11/22
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Bronze medal khunt 2022 - Buy..Bellingham and another mid 20s Thiago type...lets just call him "frank" (U18109)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 43 seconds ago
what context and what comment?
I accept the history of England in WCs as you have listed . It shows, as we all know, that apart form 1966 it has been a catalogue of underachievement against the perceived standing that Englsh football has been regarded, (mainly in England). Basically we arent as good as we think. Never had been. Countries newer to football like USA, some in Asia etc... have caught up with us and on last night's game and may have even overtaken us.
Just qualifying in a WC and especially (much harder) in a Euros group is an achievement for England and first or second place will do.
But still dont know what peak England means. (Is it the best level England have been... ie in 1966?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that’s bollox though, the only show in town is the South Americans and Europe. Asian, African and North American sides in world cups where more than 8 teams qualify - Quarter finals is quite rare, Semi finals we are talking only South Korea on home soil in 2002 and USA in 1930 when.
England We’re World Cup semi finalists 4 years ago and have made that stage 3 times, our average finishing position at world cups is the Quarter final. Those sides that you reckon have caught up are miles and miles behind.
Furthermore, England have never lost to either and African or Asian side at the World Cup and but did lose to USA in the 1930’s.
++++++
1950s
We are utterly dominant over those sides.
++++
Close games actually. eg. Rewatch the Camaroon game in 1990. Morrocco in 1986. Egypt in 1990. Algeria 2010. Thats 4 games and just one win. Hardly dominance.
Generally the great World Cup sides are:
Brazil
Germany
Italy
And personally I think France should be there now
+++++
Historically have been, yes.
Then you have
Argentina
++++
stick them in the group above
.
Then
Spain
England
Uruguay
++++++
stick Holland and Portugal in there.
We should nearly always make the quarters and winning the group can often give us a path to a semi before plying a truly side
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be agreeing with me whilst trying to disagree with me.
We rarely get to play African or Asian teams in the WC. Mainly European teams (Poland Ukraine Checz Denmark Slovinia etc) and South/Central American (Columbia Paraguay Chile Jamaica Panama etc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’ve played African sides 16 times at the World Cup and not lost a single one of them - we are dominant. No African side has ever made a World Cup semi - it is ludicrous to compare England to the African sides as they have never been good enough - mostly because their FA’s are corrupt and don’t funnel the money back into the game - also African qualifying is brutal compared to Europe and South America.
Argentina are not in the group above 2 World Cup wins, one on home soil and generally considered the lost corrupt World Cup ever. They cheated again in 86, but also scored the greatest goal ever - so I’m conflicted.
They made 2 further finals but I’m not having them in the same league as Brazil and Germany - their records are astounding - pre 2018 Germany had only failed to make the World Cup semi final once when Bulgaria knocked them out in the quarters of 1994. Brazil have only ever lost 1 group game. Just insane records.
Portugal haven’t ever made a World Cup final and have only made the Semis twice - they are a good Euros team and less than average World Cup side. I agree about Holland though, I will re revise the list to
Tier 1
Brazil
Germany
Tier 2
Italy
France
Argentina
Tier 3
Spain
Uruguay
England
Holland
Again, realistically we should be making the Quarters nearly every time and we could creep our average finishing place up to semi finalists if we start winning the groups more often and taking the easier path
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we havent played African teams16 times in World Cups. It's 6. I also forgot to list the 0-0 game with Nigeria 2002 too.
See my previous post for England record vs Africa in World Cups. Never been beat, won 4 out of 7 but all hard close games. Not very good really considering how much better some English people insist we are/have been than African teams when it counts.
posted on 26/11/22
*7 games
Page 3 of 5