My point is that if Iceland lose, or go to say Slovakia and ****** a late 1-0 win, their nation & people wouldn't be slamming them left, right & centre. The Iclandic fans & media recognise that they're not a leading force in international football by any means, which is a leaf I think English fans & media should take out of their book (although tbf there's a lot people who know exactly where England are at, and don't expect that much, pity it's just not the majority). I mean, who's to say England should've went to Slovakia and slammed them tonight? Why are England better? Based on what? Because they're richer? Drive flashier cars? Beause Fifa or FM stats say so? Because the Premier League (widely regarded best league in the world) is English? The best players in the league are foreign, the champions of the league will be managed by a foreign manager, and as soon as any decent looking English youth breaks onto the scene they either have every camera, newspaper article and last bit of attention under the sun on him, or be chucked straight into international senior level without letting complete what I think, is the correct development stages, something a country like Spain would do (bring them up through u21's, etc). I'm glad to see Rashford back playing with his age group for England, let him develop, gain a few relationships & understanding with his peers there, and who knows? In a few years, 2-3 of who have played with each other in U21 tournaments and qualifying games, may be crucial for the senior team, as a team.
Germany know what they're about, Spain know what they're about, France know what they're about, England just chop & change different formations, managers & players every five minutes... it's hard to set anything in place, as the pundits in the studio said, they have no "identity". I personally think England are behind as many international teams now than they have been in some time, Wales are almost on par with them. Having said that, putting all of this criticism aside, I do think Sam has a good foundation to work with if given a lengthy tenure, with the emerging talent due to come through over the next few years, mixed with the few young players already on the scene and gaining experience cap-by-cap in Dele Alli, Ross Barkley (expect to see him force his way back onto the international scene), John Stones, Luke Shaw, etc., to push on inside the next 5-10 years and become a team in which can go into tournaments knowing what they're about, knowing their strengths & weaknesses, and being confident that they'll definitely be there/thereabouts in the business end.
And my two pence is that their strength, going forward at least, looks obvious?
Harry Kane offers little else apart from his strength/presence & ruthless finishing, and even that's amiss at the moment, Sturridge or Vardy are much more suited to what in my opinion, England would excel at; pace & fluency. With flair players available to them like Lallana, Barkley, Dele Alli, with pace on the wings in Sterling/Ox/Townsend/Walcott, it feels criminal to play possesion football and players dropping too deep to get the ball when they've got such pacey/fluent armory available to them... they're not world beaters as it is, so how could you expect them to be if not playing to their strengths? Play direct attacking football, making runs in behind with the pace they've got, getting down the flanks, playing little one-two's around the edge of the area with the technically gifted flair players they've got, and for crying out loud stop the strikers dropping 30 yards from goal to get a ball into feet, and just take gambles and make those continuous runs in behind.... the only time England looked dangerous tonight was when Sterling was slotted in a few times or when Rooney threaded one or two in behind to Walcott (albeit the most notable one was offside), but the common denominator? PACE to get in behind. The only time they looked good in the Euro's was when Kyle Walker & Danny Rose were bombing down each flank with PACE. How silly would Iceland have been if they rarely utilised Gunnarsson's long throw? How silly would Spain be with the best passers in the world (arguably), if didn't play possesion/passing football? If you know what your strengths are, why tinker with different things, it's silly.. that's my opinion.
