Perhaps, but he'd need to sharpen up his finishing a bit.
Injuries, mostly. Sapped his speed and strength. Also you were thinking of Seedorf.
Perhaps, but he'd need to sharpen up his finishing a bit.
Injuries, mostly. Sapped his speed and strength. Also you were thinking of Seedorf.
New england kit by nike has been released, i think it looks great and will probably get it. What do you guys think?
View attachment 343360
View attachment 343360
I dislike it - it just looks to plain and empty. And there's also the fact it looks like the West Germany kit from the 1960s.
Good piece on England from a non-English point of view:
In defence of the Golden Generation
Gabriele MarcottiMay 21 2013 10:05AM
Acres of newsprint have been devoted to the so-called Golden Generation of English players and whether they some how “let down” the nation by underachieving. As of now, with both Nevilles, Michael Owen, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Jamie Carragher retiring and Ashley Cole, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard likely to follow in the next two years or so, it is worth revisiting the point.
Not being English, I come at it from a slightly different perspective. I don’t accept the “underachievement” argument at England level. This group of players qualified for five of six major tournaments (World Cups and European Championships) between 2002 and 2012. Only once before, between 1988 and 1996, did they do as well over a six-tournament cycle. Between 2002 and 2006, they reached three consecutive quarter-finals. Only once before did England do better: between 1966 and 1970 (world champions, third place and quarter-finalists).
Those are numbers. And they work both ways. You can point out that more teams now qualify for the European Championships and World Cup, so it is easier to make it. But you can also note the fact that, once you get there, it’s far more competitive, owing to the rise of certain nations and continents.
Then there is the eye-test and the manner of the exits which, admittedly, is somewhat more subjective. England chucking away a one-goal lead over Brazil in 2002, thanks also to an individual error of the kind for which you really can not legislate. England losing on penalty kicks in 2004, after Beckham’s slip. England falling in 2006, again on penalties, again against Portugal, this time after playing nearly an hour with ten men after Wayne Rooney’s red card and Cristiano Ronaldo’s wink.
You can debate the individual tournament. But this group of players made England look like plausible semi-finalists in each of those competitions. Certainly more so than in 2010 or 2012, when the group was decidedly on the wane and, in key positions, the baton had been passed.
At club level it is easy to forget that every single one of those players except for Owen has a Champions League medal (and some have two). And they did not win that silverware as “passengers” but as protagonists. That makes a difference too.
As a group, they resonated beyond these shores in a way no other generation of English footballers has. You can argue that it was a different time, that the game is more globalised, that the media reaches further than it did in the past. And that’s true. But it also means there is more competition. The fact that so many of these men were household names throughout Europe and beyond is something that can’t be said for any other generation of English players, before or after.
All of them were born in the six years between November 1974 (Scholes) and December 1980 (Cole). If you have time and a database on your hands, here is a challenge: come up with eleven English players born in any 43-month period at any time in history who achieved more than these guys. I’ll bet you can’t, but I’m ready to have my mind changed.
Incidentally, there is another lesson in here. If you assume footballers are formed between the ages of 14 and 18, then the period between 1989 and 1998 must have been some kind of Golden Era of youth development. And yet nobody views it that way. Nobody points to what the FA or clubs did at the time as some kind blueprint for success. (Indeed, Howard Wilkinson’s “White Paper” came out in 1996, suggesting that the powers-that-be at the time though an overhaul was needed). You may think England’s youth development was deeply flawed back then, anyway — as the FA obviously did — but if that is the case then the lesson to be learned is that maybe you do not judge a system simply by the number of top footballers it produces.
It will take time and distance to fully assess what these men achieved and place them in the correct historical context. But, to me, they look like a truly special group. One which England might not see again for some time.
In defence of the Golden Generation
Gabriele MarcottiMay 21 2013 10:05AM
Acres of newsprint have been devoted to the so-called Golden Generation of English players and whether they some how “let down” the nation by underachieving. As of now, with both Nevilles, Michael Owen, Paul Scholes, David Beckham and Jamie Carragher retiring and Ashley Cole, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard likely to follow in the next two years or so, it is worth revisiting the point.
Not being English, I come at it from a slightly different perspective. I don’t accept the “underachievement” argument at England level. This group of players qualified for five of six major tournaments (World Cups and European Championships) between 2002 and 2012. Only once before, between 1988 and 1996, did they do as well over a six-tournament cycle. Between 2002 and 2006, they reached three consecutive quarter-finals. Only once before did England do better: between 1966 and 1970 (world champions, third place and quarter-finalists).
Those are numbers. And they work both ways. You can point out that more teams now qualify for the European Championships and World Cup, so it is easier to make it. But you can also note the fact that, once you get there, it’s far more competitive, owing to the rise of certain nations and continents.
Then there is the eye-test and the manner of the exits which, admittedly, is somewhat more subjective. England chucking away a one-goal lead over Brazil in 2002, thanks also to an individual error of the kind for which you really can not legislate. England losing on penalty kicks in 2004, after Beckham’s slip. England falling in 2006, again on penalties, again against Portugal, this time after playing nearly an hour with ten men after Wayne Rooney’s red card and Cristiano Ronaldo’s wink.
You can debate the individual tournament. But this group of players made England look like plausible semi-finalists in each of those competitions. Certainly more so than in 2010 or 2012, when the group was decidedly on the wane and, in key positions, the baton had been passed.
At club level it is easy to forget that every single one of those players except for Owen has a Champions League medal (and some have two). And they did not win that silverware as “passengers” but as protagonists. That makes a difference too.
As a group, they resonated beyond these shores in a way no other generation of English footballers has. You can argue that it was a different time, that the game is more globalised, that the media reaches further than it did in the past. And that’s true. But it also means there is more competition. The fact that so many of these men were household names throughout Europe and beyond is something that can’t be said for any other generation of English players, before or after.
All of them were born in the six years between November 1974 (Scholes) and December 1980 (Cole). If you have time and a database on your hands, here is a challenge: come up with eleven English players born in any 43-month period at any time in history who achieved more than these guys. I’ll bet you can’t, but I’m ready to have my mind changed.
Incidentally, there is another lesson in here. If you assume footballers are formed between the ages of 14 and 18, then the period between 1989 and 1998 must have been some kind of Golden Era of youth development. And yet nobody views it that way. Nobody points to what the FA or clubs did at the time as some kind blueprint for success. (Indeed, Howard Wilkinson’s “White Paper” came out in 1996, suggesting that the powers-that-be at the time though an overhaul was needed). You may think England’s youth development was deeply flawed back then, anyway — as the FA obviously did — but if that is the case then the lesson to be learned is that maybe you do not judge a system simply by the number of top footballers it produces.
It will take time and distance to fully assess what these men achieved and place them in the correct historical context. But, to me, they look like a truly special group. One which England might not see again for some time.
The margins are so fine. If we were a nation who was better at penalties we might be talking about a couple of semis and possibly even a final during that period, rather than 3 straight quarters (which was still a good achievement). The same can be said about Euro 2012.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Average...
Bullying poor Jack Butland!
Ball retention was better, albeit still a few too many aimless long balls. Then again, with Ireland looking to sit deep in two banks of four ball retention was never likely to be a problem. Carrick was brilliant tonight, playing some good incisive balls, particularly to the feet of Rooney, but Roons rarely had time to turn and play the ball through.
Wingers showed a couple of flashes but were uninspiring. Lampard's goal showed why he has a use in that role against weak teams who are looking to soak up pressure and aren't likely to test us between the lines.
In the end didn't really create enough to say we deserved to win, but Walcott or Oxlade could and probably should have won it late. A few positives were there which we can build on, chiefly that Carrick has surely cemented his place as a key player now (finally).
Wingers showed a couple of flashes but were uninspiring. Lampard's goal showed why he has a use in that role against weak teams who are looking to soak up pressure and aren't likely to test us between the lines.
In the end didn't really create enough to say we deserved to win, but Walcott or Oxlade could and probably should have won it late. A few positives were there which we can build on, chiefly that Carrick has surely cemented his place as a key player now (finally).
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The England u21's are literally awful... possible the worst set of performances i have seen at a major tournament
If Stuart Pearce remains in charge it will be a miracle
If Stuart Pearce remains in charge it will be a miracle
I was fully intending to watch all our games, but after the first bit of the Norway game I just completely lost interest lol. So much for England's bright future
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I was fully intending to watch all our games, but after the first bit of the Norway game I just completely lost interest lol. So much for England's bright future
We have got some very good young players...
But the lack of a striker is massively evident, gotno end product or imagination in the final third
I was fully intending to watch all our games, but after the first bit of the Norway game I just completely lost interest lol. So much for England's bright future
Not sure about bright future but England do have some very good young players just that they are not picked, maybe many players of FA see this competition as useless. Just look at other teams, Germany took Holtby, Rode, Rudy and few other players who are over 21 years.
Spain have 14 players who are over 21 years old and they took strongest possible team and players who are eligible. Players like Thiago, De Gea, Illarramendi, Canales, Camacho, Isco are all in the squad and players who are at their level or even inferior are not selected by England and instead they were playing friendlies. Players like Welbeck, Ox, Sturridge, Wilshere, Jones, Rodwell were all eligible but were not selected. If I'm not wrong even Smalling is eligible.
Netherlands selected Strootman who was Netherlands vice captain (he was/is).
You're right, I wasn't being entirely serious in that comment. We do have some good players. But by all accounts we were poor against Norway and Israel. Even with the players that weren't picked we surely should have shown more than we did during the tournament?
You're right about Spain, and I agree with the point you make about the eligible players not being picked, but the squad we had should still have been strong enough to beat Israel, and probably Norway as well.
Good. He's proof that "passion" doesn't make you a good manager.
And Southgate is favorite to get the job, is there any difference?