[Football] Getting rid of Rooney was the start of all of this

[Herr Tubthumper]

6 years ago Wilshire's style of a brilliant short passing game, including some great CL performances in a dodgy Arsenal team, could have seen him playing for Barca.

His career has declined due to his injury record, caused in part by him chasing every ball and going full throttle into every challenge. He doesn't know how to pace his game, or when not to fight every single battle. He has a short fuse, often justifiably so after being fouled relentlessly, but he can't help himself in seeking retribution. Against the thuggish cheats of Colombia and Panama, even as a sub he would've been targeted.

Southgate in squad selection steered completely clear of anyone with injuries or suspect temperament.

That’s a really good assessment of Wilshire.

 

[LlcoolJ]

There is lots to be proud of , lots to enjoy. But the single biggest factor in our success in the World Cup so far is the level of opposition we have faced.
Facing top, established countries did for us in 86, 90, 98, 02, 06 (ish) , 10, 14. I can’t remember any further back.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t enjoy the moment but I’m sure everyone would have thought John terry, Sven and Gerrard etc were lovely people if we’d squeezed past Portugal in 06.

To go back to the op’s original post, it is harsh but true. Allardyce backed Rooney which I’ve no doubt, and I thought at the time, was the wrong way to go. Good call to sack him off, good call to get rid of hart, good call not to select Wiltshire.

But if we’d have played France in the last 16 , would we have won? I very much doubt it. Equally , would the Much-maligned golden generation have seen off panama, Tunisia , a weakened Colombia and Sweden ?. I would put my house on it that they would.

The Golden Generation that couldn't win a group consisting of Algeria, Slovenia and USA in 2010 you mean?

Or the same one that couldn't beat Sweden in 2006 having scraped past the mighty Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago?

You'd have lost your house.

 

[DJ NOBO]

The Golden Generation that couldn't win a group consisting of Algeria, Slovenia and USA in 2010 you mean?

Or the same one that couldn't beat Sweden in 2006 having scraped past the mighty Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago?

You'd have lost your house.

I guess that leaves me with 2002 vintage.
Your verdict on 2006 is a little harsh.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I guess that leaves me with 2002 vintage.
Your verdict on 2006 is a little harsh.

My point was that you said that you'd put your house on that team despatching the teams that this current England team has beaten. Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year.

Sven reckons the 2002 team was in no way ready to win the World Cup. Not that I agree with him, that was a very good side.

I still rate the 98 squad as the best we had in my memory, and it would have been even better if the moron in charge had picked Gazza. With a bit of luck and a better manager we would have had a serious chance.

What I don't like is all this "we've just been lucky with who we've played" crap. To win a tournament you need a bit of luck. How many times have we been really unlucky? Loads. You also have to BEAT the "lesser" teams that you play. Something that previous England teams were generally incapable of.

Oh and the comments about "Croatia etc beat Argentina". So what? Argentina were ****ing shit. [emoji23]

 

[drew]

The Golden Generation that couldn't win a group consisting of Algeria, Slovenia and USA in 2010 you mean?

Or the same one that couldn't beat Sweden in 2006 having scraped past the mighty Paraguay and Trinidad and Tobago?

You'd have lost your house.

Because Sweden were a really bad team in 2006!!!

This time we only just beat the mighty Tunisia if I recall. We then lost to Belgium reserves.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Allardyce was always a mistake and Southgate was a bought in due to his availability. He did reasonably well and took his chance and got the gig. However, to try and paint it as some sort of grand FA plan is, as others have said, rewriting history. When Allardyce left, who else could the FA give the job to on a temporary basis? There is a history of temporary managers that have come from within but in most cases they haven't been given the job permanently. Taylor, Wilkinson and Pearce. The same happens at club level, manager goes and the assistant or someone in the club takes over temporarily.

Now, it maybe that a production line is now in place but if it is then our next manager is due to be Aidy Boothroyd!

More likely Steve Holland, much like Joachim Low stepped up after Klinsman.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Because Sweden were a really bad team in 2006!!!

This time we only just beat the mighty Tunisia if I recall. We then lost to Belgium reserves.

I don't understand what you're on about with the Sweden comment. We played our reserves v Belgium too so what's the relevance of that?

 

[DJ NOBO]

My point was that you said that you'd put your house on that team despatching the teams that this current England team has beaten. Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year.

Sven reckons the 2002 team was in no way ready to win the World Cup. Not that I agree with him, that was a very good side.

I still rate the 98 squad as the best we had in my memory, and it would have been even better if the moron in charge had picked Gazza. With a bit of luck and a better manager we would have had a serious chance.

What I don't like is all this "we've just been lucky with who we've played" crap. To win a tournament you need a bit of luck. How many times have we been really unlucky? Loads. You also have to BEAT the "lesser" teams that you play. Something that previous England teams were generally incapable of.

Oh and the comments about "Croatia etc beat Argentina". So what? Argentina were ****ing shit. [emoji23]

And my point was that over the years, ultimately England have been put out by one of the big boys, or a combination in 2014. That’s not defending those massively underperforming Sven teams, but it’s a footballing fact.
So far this team hasn’t been tested by one of the big nations (not counting Belgium game).
Only overcoming one of them (and Croatia counts imho), would truly separate this side from other England teams.


You are absolutely right that we deserve a bit of luck btw.
As for 1998 squad - you call hoddle a moron ? I thought he was pretty switched on.
Sven though....grrrrrrrrrr. dreadful. Still makes me angry

 

[Ernest]

I guess that leaves me with 2002 vintage.
Your verdict on 2006 is a little harsh.

Couldn't beat Sweden in 2002

 

[LlcoolJ]

And my point was that over the years, ultimately England have been put out by one of the big boys, or a combination in 2014. That’s not defending those massively underperforming Sven teams, but it’s a footballing fact.
So far this team hasn’t been tested by one of the big nations (not counting Belgium game).
Only overcoming one of them (and Croatia counts imho), would for me truly separate this team from other England teams.


You are absolutely right that we deserve a bit of luck btw.
As for 1998 squad - you call hoddle a moron ? I thought he was pretty switched on.
Sven though....grrrrrrrrrr. dreadful. Still makes me angry

Hoddle was (and is) switched on tactically. In everything else he is an idiot. Hence why his total lack of man management skills and massive ego ruined our chances in that tournament.

I also completely agree re Sven. Paid an absolute fortune to pick the same team over and over again and have no plan B whatsoever.

I'm only disagreeing on the idea that those Sven sides would have done the same as this team. Point of fact being that they couldn't beat Sweden and this year we have. And I think that's more to do with the manager than the players as Sven had a much bigger pool of talent to pick from. The ****.

 

[Weststander]

My point was that you said that you'd put your house on that team despatching the teams that this current England team has beaten. Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year.

Sven reckons the 2002 team was in no way ready to win the World Cup. Not that I agree with him, that was a very good side.

I still rate the 98 squad as the best we had in my memory, and it would have been even better if the moron in charge had picked Gazza. With a bit of luck and a better manager we would have had a serious chance.

What I don't like is all this "we've just been lucky with who we've played" crap. To win a tournament you need a bit of luck. How many times have we been really unlucky? Loads. You also have to BEAT the "lesser" teams that you play. Something that previous England teams were generally incapable of.

Oh and the comments about "Croatia etc beat Argentina". So what? Argentina were ****ing shit. [emoji23]

Great post, I agree with all your points.

It's easy NOW to rubbish the opposition in our 4 wins, but in the past we always stumbled in one or two of these games. We've not only won these 4 matches, but we've dominated for very long periods in each one. 3 of these teams resorted to violence at times, gamesmanship and constant fouling in the box, so concerned were they about our new found confidence and wide array of threats. We were told that Sweden had this amazing defence, stretching back over many games - we blew that apart.

 

[drew]

Hoddle was (and is) switched on tactically. In everything else he is an idiot. Hence why his total lack of man management skills and massive ego ruined our chances in that tournament.

I also completely agree re Sven. Paid an absolute fortune to pick the same team over and over again and have no plan B whatsoever.

I'm only disagreeing on the idea that those Sven sides would have done the same as this team. Point of fact being that they couldn't beat Sweden and this year we have. And I think that's more to do with the manager than the players as Sven had a much bigger pool of talent to pick from. The ****.

You can't honestly use a fixture 16 years ago against a nation as a comparison against a fixture now against the same nation.

Sven may have had a bigger pool of talent but in the same situation I doubt there are many that would have picked different teams. Which players that started against Brazil would you not have had in the team?

As for no plan B, Southgate hasn't yet been tested on this.

 

[LlcoolJ]

You can't honestly use a fixture 16 years ago against a nation as a comparison against a fixture now against the same nation.

Sven may have had a bigger pool of talent but in the same situation I doubt there are many that would have picked different teams. Which players that started against Brazil would you not have had in the team?

As for no plan B, Southgate hasn't yet been tested on this.

Ok. This is coming down to being able to read.

The OP that I replied to said that the "golden generation" teams would have beaten the same teams that we've played this year. And would have put his house on it.

I was just pointing out that they didn't.

As for Sven, he played a rigid 442 and picked basically the same team every time. We were found out in 2002 when playing against 10 men and he didn't have a clue how to make a difference. He was crap.

 

[drew]

Ok. This is coming down to being able to read.

The OP that I replied to said that the "golden generation" teams would have beaten the same teams that we've played this year. And would have put his house on it.

I was just pointing out that they didn't.

As for Sven, he played a rigid 442 and picked basically the same team every time. We were found out in 2002 when playing against 10 men and he didn't have a clue how to make a difference. He was crap.

The golden generation didn't play any of the teams we beat this year. If you're referring to Sweden then it was a different Swedish team that they played. Not hard to grasp.

As for playing the same way, we've yet to be tested as to whether Southgate has a plan B. We've played no one of real note yet people are creaming themselves. Despite dominance, we struggled to get a second against Tunisia and we didn't set out to compete with Belgium. Scrapped through on pens against a poor Colombia team. Let's enjoy the ride but let's not get things out of perspective.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I liked Rooney for England because he really tried and he really cared. He inherited an aging Beckham, Scholes, Rio, Gerrard and Lampard which meant his chance of success with the national team was limited. Euro 2004 and WC 2006 were enormous chances for us as a nation which weren't taken. Those tournaments we should have been semi-finalists at least, with that team we had. 2010, 2012 and 2014 tournaments all had a relatively weak England team and Rooney was trying to take on too much because the standards had slipped quite dramatically.

I think with this England team, we have a clear best player in his prime in Harry Kane, plus a solid defence and good goalkeeper. We've not played particularly well in any of the games, smashing the Mary out of Panama aside, and we've not really been able to get Kane in any of them but we've done enough. It's a shame for players from the golden era that a draw never opened up in the way this one has, for this England team. The team is nowhere near as good as the side in 2004 or 2006 though - I am confident that only Pickford and Kane would have had a chance of being in either side.

 

[Wardy's twin]

My point was that you said that you'd put your house on that team despatching the teams that this current England team has beaten. Fact is that they didn't, they couldn't beat Sweden, plus in 2010 they couldn't beat worse teams than those we've beaten this year.

Sven reckons the 2002 team was in no way ready to win the World Cup. Not that I agree with him, that was a very good side.

I still rate the 98 squad as the best we had in my memory, and it would have been even better if the moron in charge had picked Gazza. With a bit of luck and a better manager we would have had a serious chance.

What I don't like is all this "we've just been lucky with who we've played" crap. To win a tournament you need a bit of luck. How many times have we been really unlucky? Loads. You also have to BEAT the "lesser" teams that you play. Something that previous England teams were generally incapable of.

Oh and the comments about "Croatia etc beat Argentina". So what? Argentina were ****ing shit. [emoji23]

Spot on, luck has always been one of the key factors in deciding who wins a game. It probably has less impact on the very best but for most teams national or club it really can matter.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I liked Rooney for England because he really tried and he really cared. He inherited an aging Beckham, Scholes, Rio, Gerrard and Lampard which meant his chance of success with the national team was limited. Euro 2004 and WC 2006 were enormous chances for us as a nation which weren't taken. Those tournaments we should have been semi-finalists at least, with that team we had. 2010, 2012 and 2014 tournaments all had a relatively weak England team and Rooney was trying to take on too much because the standards had slipped quite dramatically.

I think with this England team, we have a clear best player in his prime in Harry Kane, plus a solid defence and good goalkeeper. We've not played particularly well in any of the games, smashing the Mary out of Panama aside, and we've not really been able to get Kane in any of them but we've done enough. It's a shame for players from the golden era that a draw never opened up in the way this one has, for this England team. The team is nowhere near as good as the side in 2004 or 2006 though - I am confident that only Pickford and Kane would have had a chance of being in either side.

It's not always the case of who is the best, more a case who does most with the talents they have. On paper they might not be as good but they are probably more effective.

 

[drew]

It's not always the case of who is the best, more a case who does most with the talents they have. On paper they might not be as good but they are probably more effective.

You're right and the arguments can only be an opinion. That said, using LLcoolj's flawed logic, I wonder if this team could beat the 2001 German team 5-1 on their own turf?

 

[Reinelt12]

It's not always the case of who is the best, more a case who does most with the talents they have. On paper they might not be as good but they are probably more effective.

Spot on - see Greece in 2000 and Denmark in 1992... on paper no one would have given either team a prayer, but both won the European Championship by playing to their strengths.

 

[LlcoolJ]

You're right and the arguments can only be an opinion. That said, using LLcoolj's flawed logic, I wonder if this team could beat the 2001 German team 5-1 on their own turf?

Seeing as that German team was shit and their performance in that game and the ensuing tournament was the catalyst for them totally overhauling their national team setup, yes we probably would be capable of a result like that. Why not?

But that's a totally irrelevant argument anyway. Flawed logic? You seem to be a master of that. Well that and not actually reading what someone has written.

I'm not going to repeat myself again as it's boring but I was originally replying to a very simple statement with a fact. That was all.