The College Dropout

Them's the fine lines of international football though.

One thing Sven did which he doesn't get much credit for - was his concentration of youth. He kept most of the old-guard but largely on the bench. Brought in Gerrard, Cole, Heskey, Ferdinand as starters straight away. The team that lost to Germany was very different to the 5-1 team. They qualified for the tournament getting great experience. Out went some very good players too. Roy's kept Cole, Lampard & Gerrard. Then decided to ditch Cole for a 29 year-old at the last. Now, not all of this is Roy's fault. Obviously, the players aren't coming through at club level. Phil Jagielka ffs, it's a very difficult position.

It's actually 1 since 2002. 2 since 1996. Ecuador and Denmark. Second rate is generous. Did anyone with half an interest in football not recognize that fact though? It's been at least a decade of talking down expectations, missing Euro 2008 etc. A poor qualifying campaign for this tournament. Lowering expectations was the relevant conversation after Euro 2000. I personally don't know anyone who didn't go into this tournament expecting any more than a QF appearance, and that was considered optimism. Quite a few "second-rate" or even third rate countries are on track for that target. The problem isn't that England didn't live up to lofty expectations. They didn't live up to fairly modest expectations, which I believe they had the talent already on-hand to meet. There's a deeper problem when it comes to character and performance under pressure. They stop enjoying themselves and this "we're not good enough - 40/50/60 years of hurt" BS takes over. It's football FFS. Other nations are enjoying themselves. They haven't cobbled together a team and a new(ish) playing style for this tournament however. This is what I mentioned earlier. With the possible exception of Mexico, the other less established teams came to the tournament with better game plans.

Agreed. Globalism of football probably slightly benefits the less established countries than the bigger ones which is an advantage too. It's more competitive.

Speaks negatively of the man that he hasn't called it a day already.

Think as a nation, we would go a long way if we just admitted we are a genuine second-rate footballing nation. We have won 1 knockout round of international football since 2006. We need to find a way to get on their level - not trying to compare ourselves. We need to focus on getting the coaching right out grassroots, the academies, the reserves/B teams etc. The level of talent we have compared to those teams is embarrassing. When we accept we are second-rate and in need of a re-build, having a foreign manager becomes an option. An option I wouldn't take but one all second-rate international football teams must consider. We are more Chile, than the Netherlands. Also the strength of our club team is 99% dependant on foreign players. It's a null point. Netherlands & France have had second-rate club competitions for a long period now. A skinny guy trying to train like his experienced bodybuilder friend isn't going to make the necessary gains. We are in a much earlier development stage i'm afraid.

I remember someone saying the Asian sides would do better than the African sides. Boy they where wrong.

Plus the North Africans are always able to draft in some more French players when the squad needs topping up. What? They continuously lose their best players to European nations.. Like whom? NSIS The likes of Zidane, Nasri, Benzema etc are all French. They are born in France and products of French life and the French football system. I don't see how they are 'losing' those players. If anything they are lucky to be gaining the 2nd rate of their diaspora in France when their own system can't produce players. If it wasn't for the French football system they wouldn't be at a World Cup. Unprovable either way How is it unprovable? Algeria have barely produced any players in the current squad through their own system. It's ridiculous to suggest they've been robbed of a player such as Benzema, who's parents I'm fairly sure were born in France nevermind him. Agreed.

I feel he said that Gerrard is a selfish c*** but in a very polite way. Not really, he said Gerrard is not a defensively intelligent footballer. His best performances for L'pool under Benitez imo came in a free role of sorts.

While I don't disagree, at international football I don't know how often this actually happens. If you look at the last 2 World Cup finalists: Spain - won all the games 1-0 with the mighty Paraguay a penalty save away from taking the lead. Don't think they played brilliantly at all except maybe in defending against Germany in the semi's. Netherlands - weren't brilliant in 2010 in terms of style of play. I believe the lines between success and failure at international level are so small. Like you say, a poor tackle and the route you take becomes very hard.

Because media and fans had it in our heads that this was our "golden generation". It was but he also had some bad luck. A helluva lot. I reckon but for a freak free-kick from Ronaldinho, we'd have won it in 2002. Really believe that. 2004 we lost on penalties to the hosts, 2006 he lost on penalties to the same opposition after having his "star man" sent-off. He had his flaws but he did a good job imo. For such a talented side, Sven's team never provided an upset in the knockout rounds. That's the problem. 1 freak goal but we never looked like getting an equaliser.

So proud of Ghana & Nigeria. For a little while it was looking like Cote D'ivore would be the only African country to leave the World Cup with some respectable performances but both Ghana & Nigeria showed up last night. Good work.

Disco - so is the country of your parents heritage the correct choice all the time? Would he have been wrong to represent Canada or Germany? If so, why?

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally. It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons. E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland. Disagree. If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman. That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian. In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse. So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason? Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica? To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage. I don't view nationality is this finite thing. What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English? How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it. My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other. Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian? Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like. So you are now saying they are as valid as each other. Nice u-turn. Of course you're still wrong as Eduardo is a born and bred Brazilian despite what country he chooses to represent. IMO Hargreaves is a Canadian man of British heritage. Raised in Germany and Canada. IMO he should be eligible to play for all 3 but I suspect he feels more affinity to Canada than anywhere else.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally. It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons. E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland. Disagree. If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman. That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian. In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse. So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason? Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica? To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage. I don't view nationality is this finite thing. Obviously coming from a Commonwealth country to England at the age of 5 is different to a chap moving to a different language speaking country at the age of 15 or 16. John Barnes is a better example for your argument. What does the Commonwealth have to do with it? Why 5 and not 15? Why does it matter if he has to learn the language at an older age? I thought of Barnes but wanted a modern example.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally. It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons. E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland. Disagree. If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman. That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian. In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse. So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason? Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica? To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage. I don't view nationality is this finite thing. What devalues sport is people moving to other countries to play internationals. We've seen Ireland take advantage of it and we're seeing Eas.tern European teams such as Croatia take advantage of it. Eduardo is a Brazilian and that should be the end of it. If he has children by a Croatian wife or even born in Croatia then they are fine to play for Croatia, but not Eduardo. Owen Hargreaves has British parents, one English , one Welsh. What planet are you on if you think that Eduardo is more Croatian than Hargreaves is English? How great it would've been to see George Best abandon his country to fulfil his dream of playing World Cup football? Answer: it wouldn't. Them's the cards you are dealt. He was a proud Northern Irishman and got on with it. My point is Owen Hargreaves is English via heritage only, Eduardo was naturalised. They are as valid as each other. Eduardo moved to Croatia at 16, represented them at u21 level. Who am i to tell him he's not Croatian? Once you accept you can be naturalised into a country and represent them, I don't see where you can draw a like.

Glad the penny finally dropped What are you talking about? I'm one of the few who didn't lambast his performances at RM (where he ended the game tonight and scored his goal). I think he's terrible at AM but i've been pleased with his performances at CM & RM. He always makes things happen and i've said so. He'll probably prove you wrong as well. That's the problem with being short sighted, not only do you look like a mug over time, but you convince yourself you were right all along. Doesn't have the attributes to be a AM. His strongest assets are physical/athletic. Which is more pronounced with space to run into (wide/CM) not at AM.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally. It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons. E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland. Disagree. If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman. That's nonsense, piffle and bullshit all rolled up into a big bollocks sandwich. The blood in Owen Hargreaves is 100% British, Eduardo is Brazilian. In your mind if a dog was born in or decided to live in a stable, he'd then become a horse. So you disagree that if you're a citizen of a country, you should be able to represent them for a sporting reason? Nationality is not a race or species do the dog comparison is stupid. I don't believe in 'British Blood'. With your logic Raheem Sterling has 'Jamaican Blood', he was even born there. Shouldn't he be playing for Jamaica? To me there's plenty of ways you can become a national of a country. Being naturalised is just as valid as heritage of an individual who has never lived in the country of his heritage. I don't view nationality is this finite thing.

The rumour is Arsenal right? Hopefully they go for Aurier instead. A number of years younger and seems a good player.

It's just the way you said it and all the exhaustive research you've done before the World Cup, well personally if I was in your shoes I might've mentioned it. I've been posting on this forum for nearly a decade and the majority of people here where surprised to know I'm Ghanaian - and have followed and supported them for the last couple of decades. There's plenty I know and do about football I'm sure you are clueless to. Knowing the formation and profile of the Costa Rican team is the least of them. Like I said, I never mentioned ability with Costa Rica. Just factors I know they have that are a benefit. Over 7 months, watching our for the few players I can watch, listening to World Cup preview podcasts, reading previews online I can come up with a bit of information on 1 of 3 teams England are guaranteed to face at the WC.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally. It's international football, country v country. No-one who isn't eligible should be anywhere near a national set up. Don't mind the got a passport get a cap rules so much but I'd tighten the residency rules - makes a mockery unless you first moved over to wherever for non-footballing reasons. E.g. Eduardo shouldn't play for Croatia but Shaqiri should play for Switzerland. Disagree. If you're a citizen of a country, why shouldn't you be able to represent them for a sport? Eduardo's more a Croatian than Hargreaves was an Englishman.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. You don't see what nationality has to do with a job with a national football team? Yeah I agree. Wish England had snapped up Messi before the Argentinians. You can be stupid if you want too.

You say there's never a footballing subject I'm not an expert on but I've never given an opinion on Jack Colback's ability or the majority of Ligue 1 players we are linked to until I've seen them play for us or someone else. Outside of the CL teams I never talk about Bundesliga teams or players. Just because you didn't care to do any research on England's opposition doesn't mean I can't. I've never once spoken about Costa Rica's quality - I know a handful of their players, I've known for a good wile they play a back 5. I've known about the general make-up of the side and manager. I could tell you about the USA side or the Ivorian side. You might not care to find out anything about these things but I do. It's the World Cup ffs. There's a billion previews for anyone that cares.

I agree. Of course some countries would circumvent any such rule with daft citizenship loopholes, one I'm glad that England haven't gone down. It's a stupid suggestion IMO. Apart from running States, I don't see what nationality has to do with a job. Also the English FA definition of English is loose at best. English parents but never lived in England is fine. But spending 5 years in the country and becoming a British citizen is not fine. Not born here, don't have English parents but being 'raised' here for some period of time is also fine. Don't get it personally.

It's not really 'every single situation that relates to football as a sport', is it? I've done research on the teams facing the teams I support in the WC. There's simply not a team doing much better than England who have all the weaknesses England do, I simply pointed that out. Me pointing out that Costa Rica having a fairly experienced and settled international team, in the same system doesn't have to get you so upset.