This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » Euro 2004 » The Final: Portugal v Greece (Page 31)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32   
Author Topic: The Final: Portugal v Greece
Zola's Moukoko
Member
Member # 579

 - posted      Profile for Zola's Moukoko     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because key players in those teams usually came from Scotland, and sometimes Wales and N Ireland.

And indeed the Republic of Ireland.

Very true indeed. But this doesn't answer why 'British' (yes i know im streching British along way here!) style players, who have been characterised as idiots with no first touch at all to speak of on this very thread, were able to some how win six European cups in a row against fancy dan foriegn teams?

Posts: 13 | From: The muddy banks of The Chess | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
and I am the life
Member
Member # 227

 - posted      Profile for and I am the life     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There used to be more younger players coming through, not because of the financial situation, but because our labour laws made it almost impossible to bring in a foreign player. The criteria that had to be met for a work permit to be granted made it not worth the hassle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thay may be part of it, but that doesn't explain why it's happened elsehwere too. Money plays a large part, for the two reasons I mentioned.


Isn't the major difference though that the big clubs now hoover up all the good young players?

Back in the day when Liverpool won lots of things, how many of the players came from their youth teams and how many came from (to pick a wild example) scunthorpe?

WHile some good must have come of the money thrown at youth development, is a lot of it not wasted by say Liverpool hoovering up half the good young players on merseyside over the last six years and only giving two first team football. Also do more kids go on to play football with lower league teams after they leave the academy's than when they started out at say scunthorpe?

Posts: 19996 | From: the crespo of a wave | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
“Very polite. Anyway, the players that have come through at Liverpool, and played a reasonable number of games, are: Steve McManaman, Robbie Fowler, Mike Marsh, Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher, Dominic Matteo and Stephen Wright. Possibly more that I've forgotten.

Now not all of those players are skilful, or creative players. Obviously. But some are, and they all have technical ability - they can all pass the ball, and control the ball well.”

That is a timespan of over 15 years there. Spurs have probably produced mremore league players over that time and nobody hypes up their youth system.

“The difference between picking Djibril Cisse and Neil Mellor is a lot less than the difference between an equivalent comparison at say, Panathinaikos, where they'd be choosing between someone on the fringes of the Serbian national team, and the top scorer for their youth team.”

Yes but if EnglsihEnglish players are better than their Greek counterparts as you seem to think, then the difference indifference in quality between the top scorer for the Panathinikos youth team and a Macedonian 4th choice striker is probably similar to Neil Mellor and Djbril Cisse.

“Well, it's not. To take Greece, for example: they get 3 CL spots, and there are three big clubs - they would have to fail pretty spectacuarlyspectacularly to not qualify.”

And how much different is this to England. Arsenal Man U and Chelsea are nailed on for the first 3,3; the 4th is between Liverpool, Newcastle and a surprise team that runs out of steam by Easter.
If you look at how long managers last in Greece you will see that expectations are just as high.

“They may be part of it, but that doesn't explain why it's happened elsewhere too.”

Bosman.

“England are criticised by fans and pundits when they play genuinely bad football. The most criticised and derided England team was Graham Taylor's - long-ball tactics, limited players, and the ultimate in determination football. It's a period that's looked back with horror, and disbelief.”

I think more confusing was his team selection and Tactics. The Norway game was a prime example of this. Many of the team were the same players who reached the semi-finals of the 1990 world cup. In fairness to Taylor, many of the important players were missing a crucial times. Players like Shearer, Gascoigne and Pearce were unavailable.

“No. You misunderstand me. It's not basic ability - they can pass the ball well, they have good vision, good control,”
These things were not evident for most of Euro 2004 or WC2002 for that matter.

“Well, Linderoth looked OK, if unspectacular to me, Gravesen looked (and is) good, admittedly, but he benefited from playing in a more attack-minded team than England, and one with good wingers, so he had more options to find passes.”

So you agree with me then.

“But all of France's midfield would still get into Greece's. Greece clearly performed better, and were better managed, but France have the better players.”

Again, I based my opinion on the performances of Euro 2004 and that is when big performances were called for and the English and French midfield did not show up. Look if you want to you can compare your national teams with teams that have also failed instead of comparing with teams that did well.
But as long as Italy Germany and Spain messed up you head can remain in the sand.

“Well, they were under pressure at that time, but it was pressure that could have passed.”

Rubbish, the pressure was increasing and keeping Rooney on the pitch would probably have resulted in him being sent off. He was tiring him and was kicking Frenchmen more than he was kicking the ball.

Replacing Rooney with Butt would have been negative and defensive.

“No. The Argentina and Turkey games were nothing like the two defensive performances in Euro 2004. England didn't defend deep, or hoof it clear, they weren't under major pressure (except for the last few minutes against Argentina)”

I thought England were more comfortable in the last few minutes against Argentina when Sherringham came on. Argentina were very poor in that game and lost their heads and kept diving and giving away petulant fouls. France and Portugal were a lot more composed than Argentina whose Latin temperament got the better of them.

“Very true indeed. But this doesn't answer why 'British' (yes I know im stretching British along way here!) style players, who have been characterised as idiots with no first touch at all to speak of on this very thread, were able to some how win six European cups in a row against fancy dan foreign teams?”

You answered the question in your own post.
Back in the day, foreign teams were indeed fancy dans who were reluctant to get stuck in and did not like it up em. I am old enough to remember many of these cup wins and it was done by playing negative stifling football that would make this current England team look like Brazil 70 by comparison.
It is no surprise most were 1-0 victories.

Football has moved on in the last 20 years and Foreigners are no as weak as they once were. Do you think the French midfield of the early 80’s would have had the same impact in the English first division that Viera, Petit and co?
Plus whilst most of the foreign teams restricted the foreign quota, the best of British played for the top teams here.

Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan
Member
Member # 39

 - posted      Profile for Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Very polite. Anyway, the players that have come through at Liverpool, and played a reasonable number of games, are: Steve McManaman, Robbie Fowler, Mike Marsh, Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher, Dominic Matteo and Stephen Wright. Possibly more that I've forgotten.

Now not all of those players are skilful, or creative players. Obviously. But some are, and they all have technical ability - they can all pass the ball, and control the ball well."

That is a timespan of over 15 years there. Spurs have probably produced mremore league players over that time and nobody hypes up their youth system.

Well, my initial reference to Liverpool's youth team was to the effect that hardly anyone was coming through, despite a good youth team, so that's not really an argument. Bigger clubs, nowadays, produce less young players.

quote:
Yes but if English players are better than their Greek counterparts as you seem to think, then the difference indifference in quality between the top scorer for the Panathinikos youth team and a Macedonian 4th choice striker is probably similar to Neil Mellor and Djbril Cisse.
The lower down you go in football, the more players there are that come through youth systems. It's the case in every league, and it's the case among leagues.

quote:
"Well, it's not. To take Greece, for example: they get 3 CL spots, and there are three big clubs - they would have to fail pretty spectacularly to not qualify."

And how much different is this to England. Arsenal Man U and Chelsea are nailed on for the first 3,3; the 4th is between Liverpool, Newcastle and a surprise team that runs out of steam by Easter.
If you look at how long managers last in Greece you will see that expectations are just as high.

Fair point about the Greek managers, but a lot of that's down to volatile, and impatient chairmen. What I mean is, although they may be demanding, their expectations aren't that great - i.e. not much more than winning the Greek league, which leaves room for trying out younger players - more so than the bigger leagues, anyway.

As for the English league? Well, yeah, you're right up to a point, but there are still extremely high pressures on the top 5 - in some cases to get into, and in others to do well in, the Champions League. Everyone else is spending to stay up, or to get into Europe, and you end up with large squads. Which brings me onto your next point.

quote:
"They may be part of it, but that doesn't explain why it's happened elsewhere too."

Bosman.

Ah, yes, I'd kind of forgotten Bosman. That's part of it - it helps clubs to sign foreign players easier. It proves my point a bit, but not completeley - after all, every European nation can use the Bosman rule. But it's the richer leagues that it affects the most, I'd say - clubs can accumulate large squads, and bring even more players in in January when things aren't going well. This is particularly problematic at the big clubs, where most clubs have two, sometimes three players for every position on the field. It's hard for a youngster to get through when he needs two players to get injured before he can get onto the bench. A good example of this is Stephen Wright, who was playing well for Liverpool, but midway through the season, they decided to sign Abel Xavier on a free. He was as mediocre as you'd expect, and lasted about 1 year, but Wright hardly played for the club again.

quote:
I think more confusing was his team selection and Tactics. The Norway game was a prime example of this. Many of the team were the same players who reached the semi-finals of the 1990 world cup. In fairness to Taylor, many of the important players were missing a crucial times. Players like Shearer, Gascoigne and Pearce were unavailable.
I don't know what you mean by this, to be honest - certainly from 1990-94, England were crap in every way - uncultured, tedious football, poor tactics, weird team selections, some really shit players, and generally bad results. So they were criticised.

quote:
"No. You misunderstand me. It's not basic ability - they can pass the ball well, they have good vision, good control,"
These things were not evident for most of Euro 2004 or WC2002 for that matter.

2002? Well, Gerrard and Lampard, the two that this discussion has focused on, didn't go. Beckham was injured, and Scholes has been crap for England for ages. So it's hardly representative. And the team still did reasonably well.

And this year... well, none of them particularly showed that they couldn't pass, or control it. They didn't play to their best, but they didn't play particularly badly. And again - four games. Four games that they should have played better in, sure, but you can't completely judge a player on them.

quote:
"Well, Linderoth looked OK, if unspectacular to me, Gravesen looked (and is) good, admittedly, but he benefited from playing in a more attack-minded team than England, and one with good wingers, so he had more options to find passes."

So you agree with me then.

Well, no. And quite clearly not. As I keep saying, England's midfield is OK, but too similar. Denmark's has wingers - a great outlet that England (regrettably) don't. It doesn't mean Gravesen's better than Gerrard.

quote:
"But all of France's midfield would still get into Greece's. Greece clearly performed better, and were better managed, but France have the better players."

Again, I based my opinion on the performances of Euro 2004 and that is when big performances were called for and the English and French midfield did not show up. Look if you want to you can compare your national teams with teams that have also failed instead of comparing with teams that did well.
But as long as Italy Germany and Spain messed up you head can remain in the sand.

Well, you've already said that - about burying my head in the sand - and I've already answered. But here we go again.

I'm not saying that just because other nations are just as bad, England have no problems and nothing to worry about. That ought to be very clear. I'm saying, if other, more "sophisticated" nations are having similar problems, then maybe it's not as simple as just saying "neanderthal football culture... idiot fans..." - maybe you have to look a bit deeper than that. Maybe you should anyway. The reason I mention all the big nations is because it shows a pattern that could lead to another reason.

quote:
I thought England were more comfortable in the last few minutes against Argentina when Sherringham came on. Argentina were very poor in that game and lost their heads and kept diving and giving away petulant fouls. France and Portugal were a lot more composed than Argentina whose Latin temperament got the better of them.
England deserve a lot more credit than you're giving them here. It's easy to dismiss a team if every time they play well, or win, the opposition is "very poor". If Argentina were poor in that game it was because England played well, and controlled the game. If they got frustrated, then likewise.
Posts: 10341 | From: London Overground | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
garcia en dolor
Member
Member # 152

 - posted      Profile for garcia en dolor     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
actually i'm pretty sure they paid 800k for abel xavier.
Posts: 13290 | From: murphyia | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
“Well, my initial reference to Liverpool's youth team was to the effect that hardly anyone was coming through, despite a good youth team, so that's not really an argument. Bigger clubs, nowadays, produce less young players.”

Yes, but how many ex Liverpool youth team players are playing in the top two divisions for other team? Very few I guess.

“The lower down you go in football, the more players there are that come through youth systems. It's the case in every league, and it's the case among leagues.”

Young players get a chance even in the top leagues, the real Madrid squad contains a fair few homegrown players. Man u youth team players usually get at least half a dozen first team games to prove they can hack it before they are moved on.

“Fair point about the Greek managers, but a lot of that's down to volatile, and impatient chairmen. What I mean is, although they may be demanding, their expectations aren't that great - i.e. not much more than winning the Greek league, which leaves room for trying out younger players - more so than the bigger leagues, anyway.”

This comment is laughable, expecting your coach to win the league isn’t great? Not even the chairman of man U or Arsenal does not expect their team to win the league. Permiership managers get a fairer crack of the whip than they do on the continent. How many premiership managers are sacked on average compared to Italy, Spain or even Greece of Turkey.
Can you imagine a Wenger of Fergie getting the sack for winning the Champions league because they came 5th in the league?

“Ah, yes, I'd kind of forgotten Bosman. That's part of it - it helps clubs to sign foreign players easier. It proves my point a bit, but not completeley - after all, every European nation can use the Bosman rule. But it's the richer leagues that it affects the most, I'd say”

Quite the opposite I would say.
Pre Bosman, the smaller countries would be able to keep most of their star players in the local leagues for longer. The big clubs were only allowed 3 foreigners per team so these places were filled with 3 superstars and would not be loads of foreign players sitting in the stands that cannot play (apart from AC Milan).

Now these restrictions have been lifted, clubs can buy as many foreign players as they wish and play al;l of them if they wish.
The result is that player from the smaller countries are now playing second division football in the larger countries or benchwarming in the big teams.
This is why there are fewer teams from the smaller countries doing well in the European cup competitions as there used to be up till a few years ago.

“2002? Well, Gerrard and Lampard, the two that this discussion has focused on, didn't go. Beckham was injured, “

Yeah, Beckham always seem to be injured when he plays crap, how convenient.

“Scholes has been crap for England for ages. So it's hardly representative. And the team still did reasonably well.”

I though all the midfielders were clever intelligent footballers. And you think that with his international form of the last 3 years, Scholes would walk into most teams of Euro 2004?

“And this year... well, none of them particularly showed that they couldn't pass, or control it. They didn't play to their best, but they didn't play particularly badly. And again - four games. Four games that they should have played better in, sure, but you can't completely judge a player on them.”

Humping the ball to the opposition when a teammate is free 10 yards away, that is no the behavior of someone who is playing well. Or maybe it is the fault of Sven and the cream of English coaching Sammy Lee and Steve Mclaren and if that is so then it backs up my assertion that Enlglish player either have poor technique or are too stupid to realise that giving the ball away to the opposition in 80 degree heat is more likely to lead to defeat than it is to victory. Either way Art, I have you over a barrel.

“Well, no. And quite clearly not. As I keep saying, England's midfield is OK, but too similar. Denmark's has wingers - a great outlet that England (regrettably) don't. It doesn't mean Gravesen's better than Gerrard.”

So the excuse for England’s midfield to hump the ball around like it was a game of Aussie rules was that they had no-one to pass to? Well if they were as intelligent as you say, they should be able to create space to receive that ball so that their clever passing teammates can give them the ball like they did against Iceland (before they got knackered and were sharply removed by sven)

“I'm not saying that just because other nations are just as bad, England have no problems and nothing to worry about. That ought to be very clear. I'm saying, if other, more "sophisticated" nations are having similar problems, then maybe it's not as simple as just saying "neanderthal football culture... idiot fans..." - maybe you have to look a bit deeper than that. Maybe you should anyway. The reason I mention all the big nations is because it shows a pattern that could lead to another reason.”

Then what is your point for keep bringing them up if not for the sake of a comparison. Italy, Spain, germany and France did not have the problem of keeping the ball that England did. Their players did not look as tired as the England players did. They did not hump the ball around like England did.
Englads problems were as much down to poor technique than poor management.

“England deserve a lot more credit than you're giving them here. It's easy to dismiss a team if every time they play well, or win, the opposition is "very poor". If Argentina were poor in that game it was because England played well, and controlled the game. If they got frustrated, then likewise.”

Argentina could not compete physically in the game in the same way France and Portugal could. Physically Deco, Maniche, Costinha, Figo, Viera, Makelele, Pires, Zidane are a match for the English midfield. Argentina had Veron, Simeone, sorin and in the second half Aimar.

Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bryanattoni
Member
Member # 60

 - posted      Profile for bryanattoni     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This is why there are fewer teams from the smaller countries doing well in the European cup competitions as there used to be up till a few years ago.
Like Porto?
Posts: 8126 | From: la palude di amstel | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fewer teams, Pavel not none. And now a large number of porto's players will be procured to warm the benches of European giants.
Plus i wouldn't call Porto a small club as they do have a few bob.

Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan
Member
Member # 39

 - posted      Profile for Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
“Well, my initial reference to Liverpool's youth team was to the effect that hardly anyone was coming through, despite a good youth team, so that's not really an argument. Bigger clubs, nowadays, produce less young players.”

Yes, but how many ex Liverpool youth team players are playing in the top two divisions for other team? Very few I guess.

No, it’s quite a few. Easily comparable to anyone else.

quote:
“The lower down you go in football, the more players there are that come through youth systems. It's the case in every league, and it's the case among leagues.”

Young players get a chance even in the top leagues, the real Madrid squad contains a fair few homegrown players. Man u youth team players usually get at least half a dozen first team games to prove they can hack it before they are moved on.

Well, Man Utd’s youngsters get fewer games than they would have the years ago. Now I’m sure this is partly because the current crop isn’t as good as the generation of the mid-90s, but nowadays they (and I’m not singling out Man Utd here, in case any of their fans think I am) get a few Worthington Cup games, the odd appearance in the League, and maybe a Champions League game – it all amounts to a few appearances, and largely unimportant ones. It doesn’t give them much of a chance to prove themselves.

Real Madrid have certainly given youth a chance lately, but it’s hardly the best youth policy – Perez’s bizarre team-building pattern has resulted in a small squad, with no senior defenders, and as a result, some fairly average youth players have been thrown in. They’ve generally looked out of their depth, though, and the plan failed. They seem to be reverting back to the normal way of spending for a club of that size, which will probably be a good thing overall. But so far, their policy hasn’t been of much benefit to the Spanish national team.

And these two teams are probably among the best examples of huge clubs bringing players through – most of the others have almost no-one breaking through from the youth team.

quote:
This comment is laughable, expecting your coach to win the league isn’t great? Not even the chairman of man U or Arsenal does not expect their team to win the league. Permiership managers get a fairer crack of the whip than they do on the continent. How many premiership managers are sacked on average compared to Italy, Spain or even Greece of Turkey.
Can you imagine a Wenger of Fergie getting the sack for winning the Champions league because they came 5th in the league?

Firstly, why are you adding Spain and Italy to the argument? When did I ever say they had lower expectations? It was quite the contrary, in fact.

Secondly, you appear to be ignoring me again. As I said, there’s a difference between “expectations” and “pressure” – while a Greek manager may be under greater pressure to succeed, the level of success is lower, and taking into account the kind of players available to him, just as easy to succeed with home-grown players as imports. It’s like lower division football – if you’re managing Carlisle (say), you’re still under pressure, but your aims are quite low, so you’re more likely to use home-grown players. Hence there being more youth players coming through in the lower divisions – they have the same freedom of movement as everyone else, but they’re less likely to bring in foreigners, because, ultimately, there’s no great benefit.

quote:
Quite the opposite I would say.
Pre Bosman, the smaller countries would be able to keep most of their star players in the local leagues for longer. The big clubs were only allowed 3 foreigners per team so these places were filled with 3 superstars and would not be loads of foreign players sitting in the stands that cannot play (apart from AC Milan).

Now these restrictions have been lifted, clubs can buy as many foreign players as they wish and play al;l of them if they wish.
The result is that player from the smaller countries are now playing second division football in the larger countries or benchwarming in the big teams.
This is why there are fewer teams from the smaller countries doing well in the European cup competitions as there used to be up till a few years ago.

I would’ve thought that this proves my point more than it does yours. Bosman means more freedom of movement, which naturally means that the stronger, richer leagues are going to attract the better players of other leagues. Now this obviously trickles down – the middling leagues are able to buy up players of the lesser leagues, but like I say – the lower down you go, the less it happens.

quote:
“Scholes has been crap for England for ages. So it's hardly representative. And the team still did reasonably well.”

I though all the midfielders were clever intelligent footballers. And you think that with his international form of the last 3 years, Scholes would walk into most teams of Euro 2004?

Admittedly he hasn’t been doing well, but he’s got talent and I think a good manager could get the best out of him. Most countries would give him a chance, I reckon.

quote:
“And this year... well, none of them particularly showed that they couldn't pass, or control it. They didn't play to their best, but they didn't play particularly badly. And again - four games. Four games that they should have played better in, sure, but you can't completely judge a player on them.”

Humping the ball to the opposition when a teammate is free 10 yards away, that is no the behavior of someone who is playing well. Or maybe it is the fault of Sven and the cream of English coaching Sammy Lee and Steve Mclaren and if that is so then it backs up my assertion that Enlglish player either have poor technique or are too stupid to realise that giving the ball away to the opposition in 80 degree heat is more likely to lead to defeat than it is to victory. Either way Art, I have you over a barrel.

Well, I’m glad that you’ve changed from “no good” to “not playing well”. I haven’t said that they’ve played particularly well in this tournament – they’re not nearly playing as well as they can do – but they haven’t been nearly as bad as you suggest.

Nor am I saying that they should be absolved from blame for theirs and the team’s, poor performances in Euro 2004. But Eriksson’s tactics play a huge part – these players, and England players in general have proved – under previous England managers, under this manager, and at club level – that they can keep the ball, that they can pass it well, that they can defend a lead without resorting to desperate tactics. But this time they didn’t – they retreated back, and put themselves under pressure. And when you’re under pressure, of course you’re more likely to try and clear it than pass it to someone close to you who’s got someone bearing down on you. Of course, clearing the ball is only going to come back pretty soon, so if you play that way you’re pretty much trapped, however technically able you may be. Now maybe England’s players should take some blame for not trying to change tactics, but there’s past evidence to show that this isn’t the only way that they can play, that it isn’t the style that they automatically revert to. You can’t dismiss these players, and as a result, an entire country of football fans (because that’s where this started, remember) based on a couple of poor games under cowardly tactics.

quote:
So the excuse for England’s midfield to hump the ball around like it was a game of Aussie rules was that they had no-one to pass to? Well if they were as intelligent as you say, they should be able to create space to receive that ball so that their clever passing teammates can give them the ball like they did against Iceland (before they got knackered and were sharply removed by sven)
No. Denmark have a more balanced midfield, it’s more varied, more adaptable, and ultimately more creative – it’s mainly down to their wingers, which we lack. England’s midfield (as I’ve said) is quite samey, and as a result there are less creative options, and the team is very one-dimensional. Now this, again, could be rectified by the manager – the midfield four doesn’t particularly suit the team, as it’s basically four, quite similar central (or would-be central) midfielders. A line-up that compensates for the lack of wingers would probably suit the team better, as discussed on the ‘You are Sven’ thread. None of this means that the players there are poor, just too similar.

quote:
“I'm not saying that just because other nations are just as bad, England have no problems and nothing to worry about. That ought to be very clear. I'm saying, if other, more "sophisticated" nations are having similar problems, then maybe it's not as simple as just saying "neanderthal football culture... idiot fans..." - maybe you have to look a bit deeper than that. Maybe you should anyway. The reason I mention all the big nations is because it shows a pattern that could lead to another reason.”

Then what is your point for keep bringing them up if not for the sake of a comparison. Italy, Spain, germany and France did not have the problem of keeping the ball that England did. Their players did not look as tired as the England players did. They did not hump the ball around like England did.
Englads problems were as much down to poor technique than poor management.

The point is, what I said there. As well as the fact that if England were as bad as you make out, they would do worse than all these teams. The fact that you’re much more forgiving of continental teams’ failures, much more willing to look for reasons and excuses, much more willing to give them credit (like your opinion on Germany), but with England you’re more dismissive, it’s always “our lack of technique”, which is too easy, it’s not that simple.

quote:
“England deserve a lot more credit than you're giving them here. It's easy to dismiss a team if every time they play well, or win, the opposition is "very poor". If Argentina were poor in that game it was because England played well, and controlled the game. If they got frustrated, then likewise.”

Argentina could not compete physically in the game in the same way France and Portugal could. Physically Deco, Maniche, Costinha, Figo, Viera, Makelele, Pires, Zidane are a match for the English midfield. Argentina had Veron, Simeone, sorin and in the second half Aimar.

This is exactly what I mean – you’ll blame England for every defeat, but won’t give them credit for any win – of course they’re going to look bad if you look at it that way – that every time they won, if was because the opposition had an off day, or weren’t good enough. Argentina are a good team, and not particularly physically weak, and yet England played well – they controlled the game, and in conditions that would have suited Argentina better than England. It proves that England can put in an excellent, passing, defensive performance.

[ 13-07-2004, 14:09: Message edited by: Art Vandelay ]

Posts: 10341 | From: London Overground | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
“Firstly, why are you adding Spain and Italy to the argument? When did I ever say they had lower expectations? It was quite the contrary, in fact.”

It hasn’t stopped you mentioning them.

“Secondly, you appear to be ignoring me again. As I said, there’s a difference between “expectations” and “pressure” – while a Greek manager may be under greater pressure to succeed, the level of success is lower, and taking into account the kind of players available to him, just as easy to succeed with home-grown players as imports”

Expectation causes pressure, Chairmen and fans are a lot more capricious than in England and excuses in use over here, “too many games” “Poor refereeing” “Lots of injuries” will cut little Ice abroad.

English managers get a lot more leeway than their counterparts in other leagues in Europe, if you wish to argue with that assumption then please do so. If you agree, then your comment about premiership managers not being able to blood youngsters due to pressure is as erroneous as most of the others in this debate.

“I would’ve thought that this proves my point more than it does yours. Bosman means more freedom of movement, which naturally means that the stronger, richer leagues are going to attract the better players of other leagues.”

This was the case pre Bosman.

“Admittedly he hasn’t been doing well, but he’s got talent and I think a good manager could get the best out of him. Most countries would give him a chance, I reckon.”

OTF understatement of the year that. Scholes has been shit. If he weren’t such a big name player, you would not even be mitigating for him. If you were ray Hargle, would you drop Karagounis, bassinas or Zagorakis for Scholes?
Actually, you probably would.

“Well, I’m glad that you’ve changed from “no good” to “not playing well”.

I was being charitable.
They were rubbish.

“These players, and England players in general have proved – under previous England managers, under this manager, and at club level – that they can keep the ball, that they can pass it well, that they can defend a lead without resorting to desperate tactics.”
What England game over the last few years have they kept the ball well for 90 minutes? They can’t even do it against Liechtenstein for goodness sake.
Of course they can do it at club level, and I don’t have to tell you why.
“But this time they didn’t – they retreated back, and put themselves under pressure. And when you’re under pressure, of course you’re more likely to try and clear it than pass it to someone close to you who’s got someone bearing down on you.”
The Greek defence managed to keep hold of the ball at the back and find a teamate when under pressure. Even when they could not find a teammate, the defender would simply dribble the attacker before passing the ball out calmly or at worse, draw a foul from the frustrated Portuguese. They showed a montage of the Greeks doing this in the final on English TV (forgot if it was BBC or ITV).
If the Greeks can do this, then the technically superior English with their world class players should too.
“Based on a couple of poor games under cowardly tactics.”
I would have said three games not two.

“No. Denmark have a more balanced midfield, it’s more varied, more adaptable, and ultimately more creative – it’s mainly down to their wingers, which we lack.”

So a lack of wide players turned the English midfield from sweet passing intelligent footballers into hoof and hopers? The fact that the Danes were prepared to pass the ball to feet and had the ability to do so has no bearing then?
“The point is, what I said there. As well as the fact that if England were as bad as you make out, they would do worse than all these teams. The fact that you’re much more forgiving of continental teams’ failures, much more willing to look for reasons and excuses, much more willing to give them credit (like your opinion on Germany), but with England you’re more dismissive, it’s always “our lack of technique”, which is too easy, it’s not that simple.”
England had what most other teams in the tournament lacked and that is clinical finishers. Whilst Spain, Germany, Italy and France were missing sitters England were burying half chances.
England only reached the Quarter finals due to Wayne Rooney, the whole country realises this and that is why they are upset that a respectable showing in this tournament is mainly due to the brilliance of an 18 year old when the team was supposed to be full of all these superstars who ran around like pregnant women.

Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bryanattoni
Member
Member # 60

 - posted      Profile for bryanattoni     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Bosman ruling has nothing to do with the number of foreign players in a team.

The Bosman ruling (1995) allowed players to become free agents when their contracts expired.

The Maastricht Treaty (1992) is what guaranteed freedom of movement within the EU and abolished the legal basis for capping the number of 'foreign' EU players in a team.

Posts: 8126 | From: la palude di amstel | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes Pavel, but football did not heed the maastrict treaty and continued with the foreigner ruling until the bosman ruling when they were forced to adopt EU labour laws.
Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat
Member
Member # 19

 - posted      Profile for Croute au fromage et oeuf au plat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe some of us are a lot more demanding of England
because of the amount of bragging coming out. Not only
from the predictable tabloids but from the players,
coaches and often the fans about the quality of the team.
No one went at it more than the Beckham's of this world
about their so called golden generation and confidence
they can win the tournament.

I haven't heard many Danish(equal to England) or
Greeks (better than England) go on and on in such
way...

England is not rubbish per se, they are a
Top 10 team in Europe but they seem convinced
that they are genuine contenders as opposed to
dark horses with nothing to back up their claims
but a WC in 66 and a few semi-finals.

Posts: 16714 | From: Outskirts of Manchester | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan
Member
Member # 39

 - posted      Profile for Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Firstly, why are you adding Spain and Italy to the argument? When did I ever say they had lower expectations? It was quite the contrary, in fact."

It hasn’t stopped you mentioning them.

I know I've mentioned them, that's exactly the point. My original reference to Spain and Italy was that they, like us, have high expectations (and that), and you respond with the fact that they have just as high, or higher, expectations.

quote:
Expectation causes pressure, Chairmen and fans are a lot more capricious than in England and excuses in use over here, “too many games” “Poor refereeing” “Lots of injuries” will cut little Ice abroad.

English managers get a lot more leeway than their counterparts in other leagues in Europe, if you wish to argue with that assumption then please do so. If you agree, then your comment about premiership managers not being able to blood youngsters due to pressure is as erroneous as most of the others in this debate.

But this assumes that the only pressure that managers feel is the pressure to keep their jobs. Managers (generally) want to do well, and to do well at this level, whether it's by going far in Europe, qualifying for Europe, or simply staying up, is hard to do, particularly, at the top end. It's not something that can be easily done by bringing through youth players. Managers, on the whole, tend to take the easy option - this may not be right, or beneficial for the game as a whole, but it's true (and not just here) - and understandable, in a lot of cases.

quote:
"I would’ve thought that this proves my point more than it does yours. Bosman means more freedom of movement, which naturally means that the stronger, richer leagues are going to attract the better players of other leagues.”

This was the case pre Bosman.

I know. But it's more so now. Odd that you should disagree with this as it's pretty much a restatement of what you wrote:

quote:
Pre Bosman, the smaller countries would be able to keep most of their star players in the local leagues for longer. The big clubs were only allowed 3 foreigners per team so these places were filled with 3 superstars and would not be loads of foreign players sitting in the stands that cannot play (apart from AC Milan).

Now these restrictions have been lifted, clubs can buy as many foreign players as they wish and play al;l of them if they wish.
The result is that player from the smaller countries are now playing second division football in the larger countries or benchwarming in the big teams.
This is why there are fewer teams from the smaller countries doing well in the European cup competitions as there used to be up till a few years ago.

The increased inequality of European football is one symptom of this (among other things), as is the increase of foreigners in the major leagues.

quote:
What England game over the last few years have they kept the ball well for 90 minutes? They can’t even do it against Liechtenstein for goodness sake.
Turkey (H&A), Argentina, Denmark (WC), Germany (A), a few other games in the WC 2002 qualifying group.

England's tactics seemed to retreat into a more negative, one-dimensional, long-ball style after the World Cup, hence the largely crap performances against weaker teams. Our style was more suited games against better teams (this isn't intended as an excuse), but now we've gone more negative we don't even seem to have that any more.

quote:
The Greek defence managed to keep hold of the ball at the back and find a teamate when under pressure. Even when they could not find a teammate, the defender would simply dribble the attacker before passing the ball out calmly or at worse, draw a foul from the frustrated Portuguese. They showed a montage of the Greeks doing this in the final on English TV (forgot if it was BBC or ITV).
Greece defended less deeply, and had more options to pass to. Also, if you don't stick everyone behind the ball, then you're not going to invite quite so much pressure, particularly as Greece didn't take the lead untill late in some of their games. Of course, I'm not denying that Greece played better, and looked better during the tournament. They were clearly better prepared as a defensive team, and certainly, being underdogs, more suited to playing a defensive style.

quote:
England had what most other teams in the tournament lacked and that is clinical finishers. Whilst Spain, Germany, Italy and France were missing sitters England were burying half chances.
England only reached the Quarter finals due to Wayne Rooney, the whole country realises this and that is why they are upset that a respectable showing in this tournament is mainly due to the brilliance of an 18 year old when the team was supposed to be full of all these superstars who ran around like pregnant women.

Clinical finishing is to do with technical ability, no? I'm sure you'd say so if we didn't have clinical finishers.

But your second point is very interesting. This argument started with you saying that all English fans are stupid because they put up with this crap team, and this crap football, and now everyone realises how rubbish they are, and they're upset about it. Hmmm.

Posts: 10341 | From: London Overground | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Malcolm X
Member
Member # 45

 - posted      Profile for Malcolm X     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just read your post.

I shall replyy tomorrow as i have to go to the gym in a while and work on my gats.

I am sure you understand.

Posts: 14206 | From: Laughing at the budgie hearts | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  28  29  30  31  32   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there