Ronaldo Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I meant the important parts of the sentence, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Rooney was your best player against Uruguay IMO. Actually Sturridge maybe but I thought Rooney did well along with Cahill imo (other than the 2nd Suarez goal) he'll also be the next captain. He'll start and rightly so. Yep. He wasn't shite but let's stick to facts here. He wasn't England's best player. Daniel Sturridge was. Cahill and Rooney both had fair games and the rest poor to average. Facts. Ergh. Sturridge played well like and possibly was the best player in an England shirt but whatevs. Rooney ran his bollocks off and in the 2nd half was picking the ball up and driving at Italy, Cahill got in the way of pretty much everything and was caught out at the end by Suarez' world class movement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Betfair: DEPRESSING STAT: England have scored 17 goals in the last four #WorldCup's. Miroslav Klose has 15 goals to his name! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? 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. Consdiering the teams that were still in in 2002, that's entirely possible tbh. Turkey and then Germany in the final. No easy but do-able. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As you say it have no idea why Sven got so much criticism. We always have a good account of ourselves Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 He was the first foreign manager of England wasn't he, was always going to be up against it. Still don't believe we should be allowed to have foreign managers myself. Cant take the same pride from it if you do well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As much as a tactical inept coach he can be - I'd say Klinsmann would be the ideal man for England for the next 2 years. He'd took over Germany in 2004 - football at rock bottom with the World Cup in the country looming in 2006 and he transformed football and all the structures. He's not one for club football - the day to day stuff and the tactical side of things. But, to "lead" some sort of project he's the ideal person and he'd do well especially with all the young players ready/almost ready and waiting for 2016. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? 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. Consdiering the teams that were still in in 2002, that's entirely possible tbh. Turkey and then Germany in the final. No easy but do-able. Yep. Germany were good but no great shakes in 2002. Think we'd have beaten Turkey & Germany. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 There is no chance that the media and the mong general public would allow a German in charge of the national team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Question: Why was Sven-Göran Eriksson so hated/disliked by the English press/fans? 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. ...against 10 men for the most part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bailey Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 There is no chance that the media and the mong general public would allow a German in charge of the national team. I would rry and utilise some of the layers who have actually won a World Cup,or done very well in one, and who have played in England somehow. Turn the negative of 'foreign' players playing in the league to a positive. We have players who have the experience of winning the thing, or having made finals/semis, and having been around the mentality and squads in tournaments that have some degree of affection for us imo. Not saying they should be manager, but having a Vierra, Klinsman type involved somehow would be a thing I would look at. Even just to give advice/ support re playing in a tournament, how they did things, the positivity etc. Having as many 'winners' involved could only benefit us. Too revolutionary for the FA probably, but what can the likes of Neville, Gerrard etc bring to the party? (as much as I actually like Neville): the memories of failure...sadly the only British players with the experience are all dead or in their 70s/80s!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I said this the other day. A German can't ever manage the England team, and it's pretty amazing that a German of all people can't grasp why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 As much as a tactical inept coach he can be - I'd say Klinsmann would be the ideal man for England for the next 2 years. He'd took over Germany in 2004 - football at rock bottom with the World Cup in the country looming in 2006 and he transformed football and all the structures. He's not one for club football - the day to day stuff and the tactical side of things. But, to "lead" some sort of project he's the ideal person and he'd do well especially with all the young players ready/almost ready and waiting for 2016. I'd be inclined to agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bailey Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I said this the other day. A German can't ever manage the England team, and it's pretty amazing that a German of all people can't grasp why. Why not? Not being antagonistic, genuine question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I'm repeating myself, but it's the national side and nationality becomes relevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingxlnc Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Eriksson also flopped in three main issues for England: 1. Scholes - there is no reason at all, if used properly in a Pirlo type of role that he could not have been playing (even at this world cup!). For someone with continental experience you would have expected him to be able to utilise that type of system more so than most British managers who tend to be limited in their understanding and experience of using such roles as a deep lying playmaker. There was always the Gerrard / Lampard debate - but never Scholes, who was shoehorned criminally on the left side. 2. For such a good side on paper, they were largely a lucky team (Germany 5-1 aside). I don't remember a single game against top opposition where I felt really positive or that we dominated to such an extent or that I enjoyed our style of play. In fact the last time England looked good, was under Glenn Hoddle in France 98. I think that team with Shearer, Owen, etc were more unlucky than most. They gave a good Argentina side featuring a peak Batistuta a helluva game with only 10 men and had a goal ruled out. They shouldn't have really faced Argentina as it was only down to a silly penalty against Romania that ensured we finished second as opposed to top of the group. 3. Too many random caps for random players. Devaluing the concept of playing for England. The likes of Powell, Ricketts etc. Let's not forget his personal life was constantly in question, Ulrika, Faria, Nancy etc. The coach should be stable and not be that newsworthy. He didn't justify his huge salary at all for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Eriksson also flopped in three main issues for England: 1. Scholes - there is no reason at all, if used properly in a Pirlo type of role that he could not have been playing (even at this world cup!). For someone with continental experience you would have expected him to be able to utilise that type of system more so than most British managers who tend to be limited in their understanding and experience of using such roles as a deep lying playmaker. There was always the Gerrard / Lampard debate - but never Scholes, who was shoehorned criminally on the left side. 2. For such a good side on paper, they were largely a lucky team (Germany 5-1 aside). I don't remember a single game against top opposition where I felt really positive or that we dominated to such an extent or that I enjoyed our style of play. In fact the last time England looked good, was under Glenn Hoddle in France 98. I think that team with Shearer, Owen, etc were more unlucky than most. They gave a good Argentina side featuring a peak Batistuta a helluva game with only 10 men and had a goal ruled out. They shouldn't have really faced Argentina as it was only down to a silly penalty against Romania that ensured we finished second as opposed to top of the group. 3. Too many random caps for random players. Devaluing the concept of playing for England. The likes of Powell, Ricketts etc. Let's not forget his personal life was constantly in question, Ulrika, Faria, Nancy etc. The coach should be stable and not be that newsworthy. He didn't justify his huge salary at all for me. Excellent post. Couldn't agree more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I see your point about the '98 team but to win that cup, we'd have needed to have beaten Argentina, Holland, Brazil & France. They were all better than us imo. 2002, we'd have "only" have had Denmark, Brazil (granted), Turkey, and not the strongest Germany team and I think we'd have done it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I see your point about the '98 team but to win that cup, we'd have needed to have beaten Argentina, Holland, Brazil & France. They were all better than us imo. 2002, we'd have "only" have had Denmark, Brazil (granted), Turkey, and not the strongest Germany team and I think we'd have done it. We'd beaten France on their own muckheap merely a year before and thrashed Holland in Euro 96 merely two years before. Add to that we'd held our own against Brazil too in Le Tournoi ? However Le Saux's fuck up against Romania cost us dear because without that we'd have cruised through the other side of the draw up to the semis in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Bailey Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I'm repeating myself, but it's the national side and nationality becomes relevant. So the only an Englishman should manage England postion. Not that I'm disagreeing with the relevance for many, but for me that's a part of the problem we have. I would argue that it should always be the best qualified for the position, irrespective of nationality, communication issues aside. i deally yes i would say if we have the talented managers/coaches then that's the ideal position, i would think most countries would feel that way tbh. But if we don't, and at this moment I'm not sure we have, then to look at other nationals doesn't bother me one jot. i would have hoped we have moved on from the recent past (60+ years ago) between Germany and us for that to be a major issue. Maybe for a generation or two ago, but not now surely? I remember my dad (who would be in his late 90s now) having real problems with Nissans investment locally in the 70s (many of his friends had been captured in Burma etc), and whilst thoroughly disagreeing with his point I understood them. As a nation i think, hope, we have moved on a bit? Although when you watch documentaries like the one on C5 or was it 4 re hooliganism and links to far right groups etc, the other week, you have to wionder. Love to see a Vierra/klinsman/Henry involved myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 We'd also just thrashed the beaten finalists of 2002 in their own stadium 9 months earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I'm repeating myself, but it's the national side and nationality becomes relevant. So the only an Englishman should manage England postion. Not that I'm disagreeing with the relevance for many, but for me that's a part of the problem we have. See, I never said that. I don't think it should be limited to English managers. Love to see a Vierra/klinsman/Henry involved myself. A proper coaching setup would be better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts