The England Thread

[toontownman]

Cometh the hour, cometh "Wor Jack" - Quoted for Interpolic.

 

Gerrard has been a fantastic servant to Liverpool and the national team. Credit due. Good time to move on and retire to preserve what time he has left with Liverpool though.

[toontownman]

Biggest problem is young English players don't play enough in the PL, CL and now in the national team. Forget Germany & Spain, we won't even get to the level we where at in the 90's / 00's.

 

Daniel Sturridge is 24 - only had 1 full season of first team action and has just the 15 caps. I don't think he's significantly less talented than a Muller. But his opportunities have been far less.

I don't entirely disagree with your point, but Sturridge has had more than one season in the first team. He had a half season with Bolton when he was the main striker, was an important part of Chelsea's squad the year they won the CL, and walked into Liverpool's first team after being injured for most of the early season (at Chelsea).

 

How many English players take the plunge and move abroad though? Granted they have to be wanted first, but imo players and the National set up could benefit from it.

 

Not taking away from the mess that is the premiership in terms of English players. It has to be fixed and should have been 10/15 years ago. Astonishes me how prices for British players can be so staggeringly high.. "well if they made it through with all the competition from foreign players, they have to be good". Half of them don't even play for their national sides, yet command fees three times higher than full nationals coming from other countries.

[The College Dropout]

 

Biggest problem is young English players don't play enough in the PL, CL and now in the national team. Forget Germany & Spain, we won't even get to the level we where at in the 90's / 00's.

 

Daniel Sturridge is 24 - only had 1 full season of first team action and has just the 15 caps. I don't think he's significantly less talented than a Muller. But his opportunities have been far less.

I don't entirely disagree with your point, but Sturridge has had more than one season in the first team. He had a half season with Bolton when he was the main striker, was an important part of Chelsea's squad the year they won the CL, and walked into Liverpool's first team after being injured for most of the early season (at Chelsea).

 

Half a season at Bolton. Half a season under AVB he was out the team when they got it together. Another half with Liverpool.

 

He should have had 3 or 4 seasons of regular football.

[Tooj]

Gerrard has been a great player at club level.

 

Stopped you there.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Gerrard has been a great player at club level.

 

Stopped you there.

 

Indeed but just plain old average to good for England. Bobby Moore was a great player for England, KK, Lineker and even David Beckham.  But not Gerrard. I've always thought Lampard has been a better player for the national side.

[Disco]

Biggest problem is young English players don't play enough in the PL, CL and now in the national team. Forget Germany & Spain, we won't even get to the level we where at in the 90's / 00's.

 

Daniel Sturridge is 24 - only had 1 full season of first team action and has just the 15 caps. I don't think he's significantly less talented than a Muller. But his opportunities have been far less.

I don't entirely disagree with your point, but Sturridge has had more than one season in the first team. He had a half season with Bolton when he was the main striker, was an important part of Chelsea's squad the year they won the CL, and walked into Liverpool's first team after being injured for most of the early season (at Chelsea).

 

How many English players take the plunge and move abroad though? Granted they have to be wanted first, but imo players and the National set up could benefit from it.

 

Not taking away from the mess that is the premiership in terms of English players. It has to be fixed and should have been 10/15 years ago. Astonishes me how prices for British players can be so staggeringly high.. "well if they made it through with all the competition from foreign players, they have to be good". Half of them don't even play for their national sides, yet command fees three times higher than full nationals coming from other countries.

 

To you're average English footballer there is no incentive, unless you're a 'top, top' player you're pay elsewhere will always be inferior abroad (Russia, Turkey aside) hence why so many players at what I'd class as European stalwarts but in minor leagues jumping ship to play for middling/poor PL teams.

[Ronaldo]

Gerrard has been a great player at club level.

 

Stopped you there.

 

Indeed but just plain old average to good for England. Bobby Moore was a great player for England, KK, Lineker and even David Beckham.  But not Gerrard. I've always thought Lampard has been a better player for the national side.

 

Yeah. I think Lampard's slightly more static playing style has always been a bit better suited to international football.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

You can earn more as a championship reserve  than as a starting player in many a top flight European side and that's the biggest reason why 99% of English players do not go abroad, same with managers and coaches. Our entire game is driven by money and success and that's a big factor why we lag behind.  Ironically we underachieve in terms of actual success.

[Guest neesy111]

You can earn more as a championship reserve  than as a starting player in many a top flight European side and that's the biggest reason why 99% of English players do not go abroad, same with managers and coaches. Our entire game is driven by money and success and that's a big factor why we lag behind.  Ironically we underachieve in terms of actual success.

 

I can't see us ever winning a major tournament unless drastic changes are done to the whole game in this country.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

Gerrard has been a great player at club level.

 

Stopped you there.

 

Indeed but just plain old average to good for England. Bobby Moore was a great player for England, KK, Lineker and even David Beckham.  But not Gerrard. I've always thought Lampard has been a better player for the national side.

 

Yeah. I think Lampard's slightly more static playing style has always been a bit better suited to international football.

 

That and he's technically a better footballer. Gerrard is your Jon Terry whereas Lampard is your Ferdinand at international level. Gerrard and Terry are better suited to club and Premier League football than international football whereas the other two can perform at any level because they are simply better footballers.

[Dinho lad]

Gerard of club level over scholes.

[Dave]

Dunno where this about Gerrard being good for England has come from recently. Traditionally he was a fucking shadow of the player. Maybe being captain has convinced some that he was always good, but that's utter nonsense.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

You can earn more as a championship reserve  than as a starting player in many a top flight European side and that's the biggest reason why 99% of English players do not go abroad, same with managers and coaches. Our entire game is driven by money and success and that's a big factor why we lag behind.  Ironically we underachieve in terms of actual success.

 

I can't see us ever winning a major tournament unless drastic changes are done to the whole game in this country.

 

It needs to happen right at the very bottom of grassroots football first and I'm talking kids' football. Watch how kids play football in other countries compared to how they play here and the attitude of coaches and parents and even fans compared to here, it's a whole different ball game almost.

[Ronaldo]

You can earn more as a championship reserve  than as a starting player in many a top flight European side and that's the biggest reason why 99% of English players do not go abroad, same with managers and coaches. Our entire game is driven by money and success and that's a big factor why we lag behind.  Ironically we underachieve in terms of actual success.

 

I just think it's the development of established talent that's all wrong. I've talked about implementing a B team system before. And yes, money contributes to the issues.

 

As someone said not so long back. Sammy Ameobi, 22, achieved nowt in the game so far, looked out of his depth in the PL and CL, yet he posts pictures of himself driving a Range Rover and mincing about with large wads of cash. Where's the incentive for him to really knuckle down and struggle to get better?

 

Of course, there are some players with massive talent and massive drive, but they're rare in most developed countries.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Gerard of club level over scholes.

 

Not for me, people forget that Scholes is a god few years older than Gerrard. Scholes hasn't quite had as much of a club impact as Gerrard has but then that's because he has played with equal players and in various great sides so it's harder to stand out. Gerrard has been his club's star man period, kind of like Shearer was to us for many years. As players though Scholes is a level or more above Gerrard in every aspect other than perhaps leadership and the drama.

[Ronaldo]

If I had to sign one of them for 10 years of their peak it'd be Lampard.

 

Scholes was the greatest of the 3 on his best day, though.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

You can earn more as a championship reserve  than as a starting player in many a top flight European side and that's the biggest reason why 99% of English players do not go abroad, same with managers and coaches. Our entire game is driven by money and success and that's a big factor why we lag behind.  Ironically we underachieve in terms of actual success.

 

I just think it's the development of established talent that's all wrong. I've talked about implementing a B team system before. And yes, money contributes to the issues.

 

As someone said not so long back. Sammy Ameobi, 22, achieved nowt in the game so far, looked out of his depth in the PL and CL, yet he posts pictures of himself driving a Range Rover and mincing about with large wads of cash. Where's the incentive for him to really knuckle down and struggle to get better?

 

Of course, there are some players with massive talent and massive drive, but they're rare in most developed countries.

 

 

 

Young players today come from a relatively prosperous background in this country too, compare that to say equivalent youngsters from Africa, Eastern Europe and many South American Nations.

[Guest neesy111]

Scholes for England 97 - 01 was superb.

[Ronaldo]

Relatively prosperous? That's an understatement, like.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

If I had to sign one of them for 10 years of their peak it'd be Lampard.

 

Scholes was the greatest of the 3 on his best day, though.

 

If probably pick Lampard too and that's down to his goals and assists. That's why I'd always pick Shearer over Beardsley for example despite the latter clearly being the better footballer.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Scholes for England 97 - 01 was superb.

 

Ha ha, true.

[Cronky]

I'd say that Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes all played better for their clubs than their country. England have always struggled for fluency, and of course most top players perform better in the familiar surroundings of their clubs, where the formation can be built around them.

 

There was always the problem - which was never overcome - that if you played those three in their best role, they be competing for the same place. In that respect, Gerrard's versatility was a problem for him, in that he could be shunted forward, or wide, or more recently in a holding position. So he had to adapt more than Lampard, who had to play in centre mid to be of any use. Scholes also tended to get shunted wide now and then.

 

If you restricted your judgement to England games, you'd be hard pressed to choose between them, because none of them consistently shone in that environment. But looking at club form, I'd say Gerrard comes out top.

[Guest firetotheworks]

They all have different qualities, which is what makes the debate about them mildly interesting.

 

For me Lampard was a player that did things that people took for granted. He made everything look easy and because of that people tend to think of him as a run-of-the-mill player, but to me his exceptional positioning, timing and reading of the game makes a lot of what he did seem basic, when in fact he just made it look basic.

 

Gerrard was pure enthusiasm and drive and determination in a player, with a very good all-round game that thrived on the spectacular. In 2005 he was near enough the best midfielder in the world for me because of the way he played.

 

Scholes was a little bit more like Lampard in terms of his subtle demeanor and making the difficult seem basic, but with a better range and accuracy in passing than both of them. As spectacular as Gerrard, but not as consistent a goalscorer as Lampard. The difference with Scholes was that he had a higher ability than both of them to completely control games of his own accord. Both of the others can obviously do it and do it well, but Scholes was more of a pure midfielder like that, Gerrard at his purest would make an impact on the game as he saw it and had the quality to, whereas Scholes could just change the game or control it from the start.

 

I think Ronaldo had it right in saying that for his record you'd probably take Lampard, but for overall quality you'd pick Scholes.

[Disco]

The wastage of Scholes in an England shirt man, absolutely ridiculous.

[Ronaldo]

I think Ronaldo had it right in saying that for his record you'd probably take Lampard, but for overall quality you'd pick Scholes.

 

I think if you had to acquire one of them aged 25 with a view to having them in your side for 10 years, Lampard's easily the sensible pick. He'd guarantee you 200 goals, well over 100 assists, never get injured and generally be a committed leader and class act on and off the field. You can't really contend with that.