The College Dropout

France came second in a piss easy group too.

Aye but as you say, they didn't get anywhere near in the end. Which to me doesn't equate to a great side. Like the English Golden Generation, talented bunch but that's it. Fortunately for you, they where followed by one of the greatest generations football has ever seen. Something tells me Henderson & co. won't do it for us.

Uruguay have got to be a long way ahead of England too. England don't deserve to be mentioned in the pantheons of great historic national sides.

Holland too. They've only won a couple European Cups. But they must have been in atleast 6 semi-finals/finals. Netherlands have not appeared at 10 of the World Cups. Compare that with Argentina (4), Brazil (0), Italy (2) and Germany (2). If anyone is too join that list of 4 it'd be Spain having won both major tournaments and only missed 6 WCs, did miss a few Euros though back in the day. Your criteria is flawed. I believe Finals & Semi appearances should count for a lot more than simply turning up. Holland have been in the semi's/finals of major tournaments 9 times compared to Spain's 3. Spain would be slightly ahead of Holland because they've won the big things twice but still... generally as a football nation the Dutch have been superior. Spain have had 1 great side (one of the best ever) and one good one in their entire history. France have a greater football record than Spain by a long way too. I think you're coming at it from a different angle too me. I'm using my own definition as stated in the initial post and to me the Dutch haven't always been "there/thereabouts" hence why I'm not including them and favouring Spain over them & France. All about being consistant and that, not really arguing who's the more successful. Aye, fancy reading that. Read that one about Brasil by Alex Bellos that was pretty good. "There or thereabouts" means "they have a realistic chance of winning it" right? Only one and a half Spanish generations can make that claim in my books. Well you have to be 'there' to have a chance of winning it for starters and I think you could argue that Spain and others would have fancied themselves to do better in a fair few of the tournaments hence the perennial darkhorse tag they used to have. As I said though Arg, Bra, Ger and Ita are miles ahead of everyone else IMO. Then probably Spain, France and Netherlands followed by England, Uruguay and a few others. Have England been there or thereabouts post '96? We've only missed one tournament. I'd say no. Or Spurs in terms of the Premiership? IMO both have pretty much made up the numbers in terms of there or thereabouts. Despite missing a good few tournaments i'd have France comfortably ahead of Spain as well. Won more trophies, more finals & semi-finals.

Holland too. They've only won a couple European Cups. But they must have been in atleast 6 semi-finals/finals. Netherlands have not appeared at 10 of the World Cups. Compare that with Argentina (4), Brazil (0), Italy (2) and Germany (2). If anyone is too join that list of 4 it'd be Spain having won both major tournaments and only missed 6 WCs, did miss a few Euros though back in the day. Your criteria is flawed. I believe Finals & Semi appearances should count for a lot more than simply turning up. Holland have been in the semi's/finals of major tournaments 9 times compared to Spain's 3. Spain would be slightly ahead of Holland because they've won the big things twice but still... generally as a football nation the Dutch have been superior. Spain have had 1 great side (one of the best ever) and one good one in their entire history. France have a greater football record than Spain by a long way too. I think you're coming at it from a different angle too me. I'm using my own definition as stated in the initial post and to me the Dutch haven't always been "there/thereabouts" hence why I'm not including them and favouring Spain over them & France. All about being consistant and that, not really arguing who's the more successful. Aye, fancy reading that. Read that one about Brasil by Alex Bellos that was pretty good. "There or thereabouts" means "they have a realistic chance of winning it" right? Only one and a half Spanish generations can make that claim in my books.

Holland too. They've only won a couple European Cups. But they must have been in atleast 6 semi-finals/finals. Netherlands have not appeared at 10 of the World Cups. Compare that with Argentina (4), Brazil (0), Italy (2) and Germany (2). If anyone is too join that list of 4 it'd be Spain having won both major tournaments and only missed 6 WCs, did miss a few Euros though back in the day. Your criteria is flawed. I believe Finals & Semi appearances should count for a lot more than simply turning up. Holland have been in the semi's/finals of major tournaments 9 times compared to Spain's 3. Spain would be slightly ahead of Holland because they've won the big things twice but still... generally as a football nation the Dutch have been superior. Spain have had 1 great side (one of the best ever) and one good one in their entire history. France have a greater football record than Spain by a long way too.

Holland too. They've only won a couple European Cups. But they must have been in atleast 6 semi-finals/finals. They've only won the one Euros. True. WC Finals - 3 WC Semi - 1 Euro Final 1 Euro Semi -4 In terms of Europe they're only behind Germany, Italy, France and not too far behind Spain. They are a long way ahead of the likes of England, Portugal and Denmark historically.

Holland too. They've only won a couple European Cups. But they must have been in atleast 6 semi-finals/finals.

They should chop Malouda for a real #9 or winger and bring Nasri through the middle. That's where he ends up anyway. M'Vila/Diarra the deep tackler. Cabs the passer and runner, Nasri to create.

They shouldn't include friendlies and I think they do. that's my only gripe.

Didn't they win the Copa America? Seems just fine to me.

Football always depends on luck. Very little details often make the difference between winning and losing in the very big games. Just look at Schweinsteiger's penalty against Chech - great, excellent penalty - that went against the post. Look at Drogba's goal against them - how often will he score a header like that in his whole career? Once? Twice? You always need luck, luck with your players, luck with the referees, luck with the opponents. That's football, that's life. Chelsea are a poor example. That run was heaven sent and extremely lucky. Bayern missed a hatful. Barca missed a hatful at the Bridge. Cech saved 4 outta 7 penalties. Harsh to claim that as luck tbh As for the rest there was no more luck involved than there was for Barca a few years earlier though tbf, Chelsea battered them, had a couple of solid penalty shouts waved away, and then went behind in the final minute. Same as Inter who sat back and and took a battering away to Barca in the Semis and conceded a legitimate goal which was flagged off. If your keeper saves 2 penalties that would've meant you would lose each time, luck might not be the word but God is certainly on your side. Really? I'm no Barca fanboy but they dominated the Chelsea games although Chelsea looked very dangerous on the counter at the Bridge. But eventually, Chelsea buckled under the heavy pressure which is often the case when you defend all game (same thing happened against Barca). Barca went on to dominate the final. Chelsea on the other hand can't have had anymore than 8 attempts on target in total in the semi's/final whilst the other teams, missed sitters, hit the post etc. My point is, if the Chelsea tactic is your plan. 9/10 you will lose. Cech played absolute blinders. Messi/Robben/Gomez/Fabregas would be unhappy with their finishing. That Greece team weren't so fortunate when they did the impossible. Battered probably wasn't the right word to be fair, Barcelona were certainly lucky not to be 2 behind though had Droba had his shooting boots on/the referee gave a penalty for the stone wall push. And in 2012, although Chelsea did sit back and invite pressure, they did still score 4 goals over the 2 legs when they needed too, the same against Munich, they conceded late but scored when it mattered, it's entirely possible they could have done so again if Robben had have tucked his penalty away. They had 1 shot on target against Bayern in 120 mins. There was no reason to think Chelsea would've scored their first after Muller scored. For a team to score with their first attempt on target on the stroke of FT is jammy as owt anyway. Obviously they won the tournament and deserved it because the facts speak for themselves. I just think that type of victory is so rare in football, for a side to have so many key moments go in their favour was miraculous. It was the greatest cup run i've ever seen simply because they rode their luck so many times and scored at the vital moments with excellent accuracy (not a chance wasted). If England want to try that route, we will get embarrassed or go out with a wimper.

Terry IS a great leader though and pretty good with his feet. He's never been quick but he's rarely exposed for that although that's partly due to having pacy CB partners. So his leadership is a great asset (pre Bridge/Anton gate especially) and would push him ahead of 1 or 2 who are better talents.

Ferdinand was a more complete centre-half and a better player over his career imo, but I think Campbell performed better in the actual tournaments for England. Don't think Adams was at either of their levels and he's a tad over-rated really. a limited talent who, domestically, was exceptional in a settled system at Arsenal but not outstanding otherwise. better than Terry though who has NEVER looked as good for england as he has for chelsea. in fact i'd take ledley king over him. as for the person who thought des f***ing walker was better than either of them - alzheimer's is a cruel disease. Ferdinand's always been excellent for England imo. Great at WC's. As was Campbell too tbf.

Eh? Campbell was f***ing lightning in his day and would be Rio hands down everytime. Faster than a 27 year old Rio Ferdinand? Really?

Football always depends on luck. Very little details often make the difference between winning and losing in the very big games. Just look at Schweinsteiger's penalty against Chech - great, excellent penalty - that went against the post. Look at Drogba's goal against them - how often will he score a header like that in his whole career? Once? Twice? You always need luck, luck with your players, luck with the referees, luck with the opponents. That's football, that's life. Chelsea are a poor example. That run was heaven sent and extremely lucky. Bayern missed a hatful. Barca missed a hatful at the Bridge. Cech saved 4 outta 7 penalties. Harsh to claim that as luck tbh As for the rest there was no more luck involved than there was for Barca a few years earlier though tbf, Chelsea battered them, had a couple of solid penalty shouts waved away, and then went behind in the final minute. Same as Inter who sat back and and took a battering away to Barca in the Semis and conceded a legitimate goal which was flagged off. If your keeper saves 2 penalties that would've meant you would lose each time, luck might not be the word but God is certainly on your side. Really? I'm no Barca fanboy but they dominated the Chelsea games although Chelsea looked very dangerous on the counter at the Bridge. But eventually, Chelsea buckled under the heavy pressure which is often the case when you defend all game (same thing happened against Barca). Barca went on to dominate the final. Chelsea on the other hand can't have had anymore than 8 attempts on target in total in the semi's/final whilst the other teams, missed sitters, hit the post etc. My point is, if the Chelsea tactic is your plan. 9/10 you will lose. Cech played absolute blinders. Messi/Robben/Gomez/Fabregas would be unhappy with their finishing. That Greece team weren't so fortunate when they did the impossible.

Let's not rewrite history. Ferdinand was a better player than Sol and he's better than Adams was. His performances in Europe as an English CB are unrivaled. Campbell quicker than Ferdinand? Laughable.

Football always depends on luck. Very little details often make the difference between winning and losing in the very big games. Just look at Schweinsteiger's penalty against Chech - great, excellent penalty - that went against the post. Look at Drogba's goal against them - how often will he score a header like that in his whole career? Once? Twice? You always need luck, luck with your players, luck with the referees, luck with the opponents. That's football, that's life. Chelsea are a poor example. That run was heaven sent and extremely lucky. Bayern missed a hatful. Barca missed a hatful at the Bridge. Cech saved 4 outta 7 penalties.

Should go to Arsenal.

From what i've seen he#s Cronaldo-esque. Best cutting in from wide.

Don't agree with what's being said but that Toon's Taylor post is priceless.

Gerrard has no discipline. I don't think he has the ability to dominate teams in a 4-4-2 anymore.

I don't rate Barry but he's better than Scott Parker and is more suited to international football. Neither works well in a 4-4-2 mind, then again neither does Gerrard.

Mikel was superb. Was a wall and used the ball well.