England's Glorious Failure

[Monkey Tennis]

13 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

14 hours ago, Lex said:

Can you imagine Liam MacLeod, David Tanner and wee Jonathan Sutherland keeping a lid on it if Scotland were in a World Cup Semi Final?

Of course they wouldn’t. They’d be absolutely giddy with excitement, fervour and hyperbole and rightly so.

Just like the English media are.

 

Would they claim that everyone in the UK was excited though?

That was another weird dimension of the coverage at points.

I think it was a genuine, but wildly misguided attempt to head off some of the resentment and criticism they provoke, but some media were referring to "scenes back in the UK" as England made progress.  I can't speak for others, but it just served to piss me off even more.

[GordonS]

19 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

It`s my view that reaching a world cup semi-final deserves some credit. I`m not trying to claim they beat some major power but they beat who they needed to do to progress. Spain, Germany and Portugal would have been delighted to do so.

Sure, but Spain have been in six major semi-finals and have won three major trophies in the past 10 years; Portugal have been in seven major semi-finals and are the reigning European champions; and Germany have been in 21 major semi finals.

Why are England behind every single country you could regard as their peers, and in most cases by a long way? Even France, where football is not such a big deal, are in their third  World Cup final in 20 years and their fifth major final. Why are England so far behind them?

A one-off semi-final run from a remarkably open quarter of the draw means little on its own. Turkey managed that. England should regard quarter finals as a par performance, and be expecting at least one major final every 10 years. Instead they've been in one major final, ever, and that was with the help of playing every match at Wembley.

This run has papered over some massively glaring cracks.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

Sure, but Spain have been in six major semi-finals and have won three major trophies in the past 10 years; Portugal have been in seven major semi-finals and are the reigning European champions; and Germany have been in 21 major semi finals.

Why are England behind every single country you could regard as their peers, and in most cases by a long way? Even France, where football is not such a big deal, are in their third  World Cup final in 20 years and their fifth major final. Why are England so far behind them?

A one-off semi-final run from a remarkably open quarter of the draw means little on its own. Turkey managed that. England should regard quarter finals as a par performance, and be expecting at least one major final every 10 years. Instead they've been in one major final, ever, and that was with the help of playing every match at Wembley.

This run has papered over some massively glaring cracks.

This England team is a decent enough one, but that's all.

As a nation, they are football's greatest underachiever.  That status is actually enhanced, rather than diminished by this tournament.

[Distant Doonhamer]

Just now, GordonS said:

Sure, but Spain have been in six major semi-finals and have won three major trophies in the past 10 years; Portugal have been in seven major semi-finals and are the reigning European champions; and Germany have been in 21 major semi finals.

Why are England behind every single country you could regard as their peers, and in most cases by a long way? Even France, where football is not such a big deal, are in their third  World Cup final in 20 years and their fifth major final. Why are England so far behind them?

A one-off semi-final run from a remarkably open quarter of the draw means little on its own. Turkey managed that. England should regard quarter finals as a par performance, and be expecting at least one major final every 10 years. Instead they've been in one major final, ever, and that was with the help of playing every match at Wembley.

This run has papered over some massively glaring cracks.

Yep I don`t disagree with any of that. I`m giving England credit for reaching a semi after years of failure I guess. In recent times they`d have found a way to go out before this stage. Hell even winning a penalty shoot out is progress for them. I`m not for a second trying to build them up as some sort of coming super power. England are behind the peers that you mention because IMHO they were obsessed with a quick fix and thought for example  that Howard Wilkinson was a good shout as some sort of performance guru. It would seem that things have changed now and better technical players are coming through. Time will tell though going forward.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

The it's coming home stuff only really kicked off when the Germans were pumped out.

Then, as Spain, Argentina, Portugal and Brazil all fell away it reached fever pitch. The arrogance and expectation was nothing to do with how England were playing, they were distinctly average throughout, it was because a few of the favourites were out and they automatically assumed that they had a bye through to the final.

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, still_game said:

SCOTLANDS PLAYER OF THE YEAR

80 TARDELLI
82 BROOKING/KEEGAN
84 SIMONSEN
86 MARADONA
88 VAN BASTEN
90 PEARCE/WADDLE
92 BROLIN
94 KOEMAN
96 SOUTHGATE
98 BATTY
00 NEVILLE.P
02 SEAMAN
04 RICARDO
06 CARRAGHER
08 PETRIC
10 MULLER
12 COLE
14 SUAREZ
16 SIGPORSSON
18 ........

 

any guesses lol

I vote John Stones, for standing like a spectator while the ball glides past him, and having no idea Mandzukic was standing right behind him until it was too late.

[GordonS]

4 minutes ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

Yep I don`t disagree with any of that. I`m giving England credit for reaching a semi after years of failure I guess. In recent times they`d have found a way to go out before this stage. Hell even winning a penalty shoot out is progress for them. I`m not for a second trying to build them up as some sort of coming super power. England are behind the peers that you mention because IMHO they were obsessed with a quick fix and thought for example  that Howard Wilkinson was a good shout as some sort of performance guru. It would seem that things have changed now and better technical players are coming through. Time will tell though going forward.

Could you please stop being reasonable and positive at the same time? There's no place for that in the game.

[peasy23]

The fact that the three countries you mention all failed is not a basis for England’s predictable performances being seen as some sort of unlucky success story....
Given their resources they should have cruised to the final but they bottled it....again.
You gotta love the deluded English media.

Why should they have cruised to the final given that none of their midfield 3 tonight would get in the Croatia team?

[roman_bairn]

Why should they have cruised to the final given that none of their midfield 3 tonight would get in the Croatia team?

Last I remember the game is eleven a side.
England were clear favourites tonight with all major bookmakers but failed.
Indeed they have achieved nothing extraordinary in this campaign so why are they being lauded?

[BFTD]

See when folk say that England are massive underachievers...I presume it refers to the infrastructure and interest in the game? I can't think of an England squad in my lifetime who seemed like they were knocked out of a tournament before their time. I can, however, think of a couple that made it a bit further than they deserved.

They always seem to do about as well as the quality of their players merits, IMO.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Just now, BigFatTabbyDave said:

See when folk say that England are massive underachievers...I presume it refers to the infrastructure and interest in the game? I can't think of an England squad in my lifetime who seemed like they were knocked out of a tournament before their time. I can, however, think of a couple that made it a bit further than they deserved.

They always seem to do about as well as the quality of their players merits, IMO.

This is just the mindset of their support and media.

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Zen Archer said:

This is just the mindset of their support and media.

It's been repeated on here an awful lot in the past few weeks too.

I can absolutely see it in every way except for the quality of players they produce. The only important thing, in other words.

[Nightmare]

9 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Last I remember the game is eleven a side.
England were clear favourites tonight with all major bookmakers but failed.
Indeed they have achieved nothing extraordinary in this campaign so why are they being lauded?

They were shorter than they should have been. Standard bookie pricing when they know the funds are going to come piling in for one specific outcome.

I think they should have been favourites. Narrowly.

[red23]

Teams that would have beaten england if they had faced them.

• Argentina
• Brazil
• France
• Germany
• Spain
• Portugal
• Croatia
• Uruguay
• Belgium
• Colombia with james rodriguez 
• Japan (almost had Belgium)

[milhouse]

Plenty of arrogance on show from England through the tournament to be honest.

They could have gone with something simple like “Come on England”; the continuous “It’s coming home” has hilariously turned into an easy piss take. 

 

[qos_75]

England have benefited from a lot of the bigger nations coming to the end of their cycle. In particular Germany. In most World Cup years Germany would have won their group and would have routinely knocked England out last Saturday. 

Even in the other side of the draw, Argentina, and Brazil were fairly shite. For me there has been nobody that has really stood out. Kind of similr to the Euros in that respect, which has given England a better chance of doing well. 

France are okay, but not great. Belgium must be really kicking themselves for beating England in the group stages. 

A lot of folk in the media are saying it has been a great World Cup. I disagree. The two stand out games for me were Spain - Portugal and Argentina- France. The others have been fairly pish.

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

See when folk say that England are massive underachievers...I presume it refers to the infrastructure and interest in the game? I can't think of an England squad in my lifetime who seemed like they were knocked out of a tournament before their time. I can, however, think of a couple that made it a bit further than they deserved.

They always seem to do about as well as the quality of their players merits, IMO.

Well yes.  It's to do with the stature of the country in having an extremely long established football culture, alongside a large population.  Such factors have seen the other Western European countries in the same boat achieve much more.  

Suggesting that England has produced too few quality players doesn't counter the argument; it supports it.

This particular England side doesn't need to have come up short of its capabilities (and neither do former ones) in order for the statement that England is a huge underachiever as a football nation, to be absolutely true.

[Bully Wee Villa]

32 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

See when folk say that England are massive underachievers...I presume it refers to the infrastructure and interest in the game? I can't think of an England squad in my lifetime who seemed like they were knocked out of a tournament before their time. I can, however, think of a couple that made it a bit further than they deserved.

They always seem to do about as well as the quality of their players merits, IMO.

They were knocked out of the last competition by Iceland. The one prior to that they finished below Costa Rica in their group. Even with a team that wouldn't compare to some of the more celebrated England sides, that's underachieving. As was failure to even qualify in 1994 and 2008. 

Haven't included more as not sure how long your lifetime is.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Some things just can't be said enough.

[GordonS]

31 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

England were clear favourites tonight with all major bookmakers but failed.

To be fair, a lot of that is the bookies covering themselves. All the money was going on England and they couldn't afford the exposure in the event of England winning. Odds follow the money as much as they follow the probabilities.

30 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

See when folk say that England are massive underachievers...I presume it refers to the infrastructure and interest in the game? I can't think of an England squad in my lifetime who seemed like they were knocked out of a tournament before their time. I can, however, think of a couple that made it a bit further than they deserved.

They always seem to do about as well as the quality of their players merits, IMO.

That's it exactly. Given their size, the number of people interested in football, the number of players, clubs and coaches, the cash and other resources available, over time England ought to be behind Brazil, not far behind Germany, level with Italy, slightly ahead of Argentina, France and Spain and well ahead of the Netherlands, Portugal and all the rest. Instead, they're well behind all of them.