England v Germany

[Iowsaintsfan]

Would it be possible to manage England from Parkhurst Prison, mind the rest of the team should be there with him, for getting money under false pretrences.

 

Fraud would be Albany ;-) HTH

[Wiltshire Saint]

I've just been reading the post-match comments on the BBC site, and came across this one :

 

"So disappointing but hardly surprising taking note of England's lacklustre performances in this World Cup. They don't have the cha rismatic players nowadays; Scholes, Ferdinand and even Beckham. John Terry look s so fed up and bored! All the soldiers here started leaving early after Germany scored the 4th...that was the nail in the coffin. RIP England. "

 

Shaun Ruddick, Camp Bastion, Afghanistan

 

 

I am so f**king annoyed now. Some of those soldiers, who really wear "the badge" with pride, will almost certainly not be coming home, leaving heartbroken partners and children behind.

 

Yet Frank Lampard cannot kick the ball straight, Steven Gerrard cant hit the target, and Wayne Rooney cant sing the f**king national anthem or even run when needed.

 

C**ts, the lost of them.

 

I find myself agreeing 100% with you Alpine Saint. How bloody dare these so called "footballers" lose a game when we have soldiers being shot and blown up. Have they no shame? They may as well have renamed themselves Al-Qaeda Utd. It makes me sick to the stomach, to think of our proud soldiers, out there, singing the national anthem and trying to keep the world in order, when these ponces cannot even sing the national anthem, make a decent tackle, pass or score. I tell you what I'd like to do......I'd like to swap all those in the squad, the manager and all the back room staff (including Billy Beckham Big B*llocks) for some of the soldiers out there risking their lives for us and for these over paid bunch of bums. This is a national disgrace and I think that the coalition government should put spending cuts aside for one moment to make sure that there is enough money to send these losers, who have brought shame on the name of England, straight out to Iraq or Afganistan. Let them all get blown up. Bring in some of those brave, heroic soldiers and I bet they would have beaten Germany today. They would have beaten them with sheer determination. They would have played with pride, for the 3 lions, for the country, for the Queen, for the wives and crying kids they left at home. They would have scored goals and run to the corner flags and lifted tops to expose T-Shirts with Winston Churchills face on one side and their crying childrens faces on the other.

[Frank's cousin]

Wiltshires black humour aside, Alps, I dont think the squad lacked pride or determination TBH. They lacked skill and fitness - I dont want to make excuses, but we looked jaded throughout - now whether this is because of a longer season or because as individuals or as coaches the fitness program was simply not good enough I dont know. But there is nothing that can hide the simple fact that we seem to lack teh skills necessary to play against sides that can pass the ball... sounds ridiculous I know, but these prem playesr without their club foreign creative and playmakers simply dont have it in them... coached out from a too early age IMHO. EG look how backwards Liverpool went when Alonso (the creative playmaker left) - that for me is an example of what I am talking about. We simply plave too much emphasis during teh kids development on size, power, and pace, the skinny, squanny little kids who ight be teh next Messi or Ozil, are discouraged and probably give up the game before they are 12, as the local coach picks teh bigger kids for 11 a side on full pitches... just wrong.

 

If you watched brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, they pass to marked players who are comfortable on teh ball, which makes it easier for players to move off the ball and create space... English players when not surrounded by foreign playesr at their clubs, seem to struggle to pass or accept a ball to feet when marked, which just makes for a very static habit...

 

HOw often whne watching English prem or league football, and they bring on a slight youngster, do you hear the moan that they 'need to fill out a bit'? why? NO they need to develop their creative and ball control MORE so that their size is not an issue....

[alpine_saint]

I find myself agreeing 100% with you Alpine Saint. How bloody dare these so called "footballers" lose a game when we have soldiers being shot and blown up. Have they no shame? They may as well have renamed themselves Al-Qaeda Utd. It makes me sick to the stomach, to think of our proud soldiers, out there, singing the national anthem and trying to keep the world in order, when these ponces cannot even sing the national anthem, make a decent tackle, pass or score. I tell you what I'd like to do......I'd like to swap all those in the squad, the manager and all the back room staff (including Billy Beckham Big B*llocks) for some of the soldiers out there risking their lives for us and for these over paid bunch of bums. This is a national disgrace and I think that the coalition government should put spending cuts aside for one moment to make sure that there is enough money to send these losers, who have brought shame on the name of England, straight out to Iraq or Afganistan. Let them all get blown up. Bring in some of those brave, heroic soldiers and I bet they would have beaten Germany today. They would have beaten them with sheer determination. They would have played with pride, for the 3 lions, for the country, for the Queen, for the wives and crying kids they left at home. They would have scored goals and run to the corner flags and lifted tops to expose T-Shirts with Winston Churchills face on one side and their crying childrens faces on the other.

 

Says a lot about the kid of person you are that you find soldiers being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as some sort of topic for humour or a p*ssing contest.

[mickn]

Says a lot about the kid of person you are that you find soldiers being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as some sort of topic for humour or a p*ssing contest.

 

I have no idea who Wiltshire is but I don't suppose for one moment he finds it funny.

[dubai_phil]

Why is it that England only produce midget wingers?

 

Other teams have pacy wide midfielders but they all seem to have the build of Antonio sort of a footballing Jonah Lumu(but they do know how to trap a ball).

 

Oh and how ironic that their first goal was Route 1 hoofball. Any word from Franzy yet?

[alpine_saint]

I have no idea who Wiltshire is but I don't suppose for one moment he finds it funny.

 

It was a pathetic post that belittles the effort and sacrifice some of them are making for the likes of him.

[thesaint sfc]

It was a pathetic post that belittles the effort and sacrifice some of them are making for the likes of him.

 

I think the whole idea of the post was to belittle you, which I thought it did quite well tbf.

[Gingeletiss]

Should you be feeling suicidal, over that inept display by Our national team, please feel free to call our helpline on 414141.

[alpine_saint]

I think the whole idea of the post was to belittle you, which I thought it did quite well tbf.

 

Yeah, but then you think the England players didnt play badly, apparently

[St Landrew]

Our boys took a hell of a beating.

 

Thank you for that. Coffee is now being mopped up from the keyboard, the monitor, etc...

[norwaysaint]

Says a lot about the kid of person you are that you find soldiers being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as some sort of topic for humour or a p*ssing contest.

 

 

Actually, the point of satire is to highlight a ridiculous viewpoint by agreeing with it, which he did pretty well. The topic of the humour is very clearly not soldiers being killed. The topic of humour is your viewpoint, and it's pretty lame to try to deflect from your own humiliation by pretending he's ridiculing the soldiers.

[Deano6]

Says a lot about the kid of person you are that you find soldiers being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as some sort of topic for humour or a p*ssing contest.

 

Says a lot about the kind of person you are if you don't get his point, even if you don't agree with it.

[alpine_saint]

Actually, the point of satire is to highlight a ridiculous viewpoint by agreeing with it, which he did pretty well. The topic of the humour is very clearly not soldiers being killed. The topic of humour is your viewpoint, and it's pretty lame to try to deflect from your own humiliation by pretending he's ridiculing the soldiers.

 

Never said he is ridiculuing the soldiers directly, I said he is using the issue, a very serious one for his own ends to take the p*ss out of me. And in doing that he is trivialising it.

 

Its still pathetic and still embarassing, also for people like you who seek to justify it for your own p*ssing contest, and you have clearly failed to grasp what he was doing.

[alpine_saint]

Says a lot about the kind of person you are if you don't get his point, even if you don't agree with it.

 

Oh, I get his point entirely. And what a stupid one it was.

[Ponty]

Yours wasn't any better, Alps.

[norwaysaint]

Never said he is ridiculuing the soldiers directly, I said he is using the issue, a very serious one for his own ends to take the p*ss out of me. And in doing that he is trivialising it.

 

Its still pathetic and still embarassing, also for people like you who seek to justify it for your own p*ssing contest, and you have clearly failed to grasp what he was doing.

 

That's pretty weak. I would say your comments are trivial and he's highlighting how you are dealing with the subject. I don't think any negative opinion of soldiers comes across. As for using humour, I would say that humour has been a very effective way of tackiling serious issues for very many years. By pointing out how ridiculous something is, it becomes clearer what is serious. Satirising idiocy is a very good way of making good sense clear. There's nothing here for "his own ends". He makes some very good points very well, but I think they've gone over your head. I would say his point is far from trivial.

[RonManager]

Why is it that England only produce midget wingers?

 

Least wind resistance.

[skintsaint]

they are not midgets but dwarfs...SWP head isnt in proportion.

[alpine_saint]

Yours wasn't any better, Alps.

 

Why ?

 

I simply highlighted a group of people for whom their country means sufficiently enough they they are willing to die for it, and contrasted this to a bunch over over-paid arrogant tw*ts that wont even try properly for their country for 90mins.

[alpine_saint]

That's pretty weak. I would say your comments are trivial and he's highlighting how you are dealing with the subject. I don't think any negative opinion of soldiers comes across. As for using humour, I would say that humour has been a very effective way of tackiling serious issues for very many years. By pointing out how ridiculous something is, it becomes clearer what is serious. Satirising idiocy is a very good way of making good sense clear. There's nothing here for "his own ends". He makes some very good points very well, but I think they've gone over your head. I would say his point is far from trivial.

 

Yeah well I would hardly call you objective about my posts anyway. You are always having a dig, as is Wiltshire.

 

I would never use our soldiers plight in an opportunistic dig at a fellow poster.

[norwaysaint]

Yeah well I would hardly call you objective about my posts anyway. You are always having a dig, as is Wiltshire.

 

I would never use our soldiers plight in an opportunistic dig at a fellow poster.

 

I don't remember ever responding to one of your posts before, but if you can give me a couple of examples, I'll concede the point. As I said before, some of the most brilliant minds regularly satirise situations to make a serious point. It's quite the opposite of disrespectful, it emphasises how serious that person thinks the situation is. I genuinely think satire goes over your head. I would say that your original post linking football to soldier and their family's suffering is far more trivial nd offensive. Wiltshire's post highlights this.

[alpine_saint]

I don't remember ever responding to one of your posts before, but if you can give me a couple of examples, I'll concede the point. As I said before, some of the most brilliant minds regularly satirise situations to make a serious point. It's quite the opposite of disrespectful, it emphasises how serious that person thinks the situation is. I genuinely think satire goes over your head. I would say that your original post linking football to soldier and their family's suffering is far more trivial nd offensive. Wiltshire's post highlights this.

 

It wasnt me who linked football and the war in Afghanistan; the FA did that before the tournament started with the big media saturation of the meassage from the soliders to the squad and Beckhams visit to Afghanistan. I think that a comparison of the effort different groups are willing to make for their country is a perfectly valid and non-offensive exercise.

 

Only deluded academic snobs and Guardianistas would try to turn this into some sort of high-brow philosophical exercise the way you have. Do you even know what "satire" means ? It means "take the p*ss". Fine, he took the p*ss out of me as he is entitled to, but the material he chose was opportunistic and distasteful.

 

I suppose you are a fan of that serious intellectual wit and "brilliant mind" Frankie Boyle....

[Doctoroncall]

Well, comedians do tend to have a higher IQ.

[dubai_phil]

Been out all day, so Frankie Boyle to replace Cappello?

 

Not a bad idea he may be able to turn an unfunny laughing stock into a Joke

[Doctoroncall]

But Phil, the players still wouldn't get it.

[trousers]

Beckham for next England manager. No, seriously

 

;-)

 

You heard it here first....

[Ponty]

Why ?

 

I simply highlighted a group of people for whom their country means sufficiently enough they they are willing to die for it, and contrasted this to a bunch over over-paid arrogant tw*ts that wont even try properly for their country for 90mins.

Without wishing to snowball this disagreement, I have to say that the two scenarios are so far divided that I think it's insulting to compare them. That's just my opinion, you are entitled to yours and WS is entitled to his. I just happen to agree with his, in this instance.

[teamsaint]

why did the chicken cross the road?

 

 

according to FIFA, it didn't . !!

[alpine_saint]

Without wishing to snowball this disagreement, I have to say that the two scenarios are so far divided that I think it's insulting to compare them. That's just my opinion, you are entitled to yours and WS is entitled to his. I just happen to agree with his, in this instance.

 

Should I break down in tears at your little revelation ?

 

Christ, you mods are so pompous sometimes.

 

You let so much sarcasm and sneering go if it comes from the right people, then jump down the throats of others.

[Ponty]

You make a great argument there, Alps. A great argument. I may have been wrong after all.

 

That was sarcasm, btw. It's different to satire, although there was arguably a little sneering involved.

 

And that wasn't pomposity, it was arrogance. It's a terrible sin but I tend to slip towards arrogance in the face of apparent idiocy.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't be sarcastic, as a "Mod", but then I've probably been one for too long now anyway. Having to bite one's tongue gets depressing after a while.

[SuperMikey]

Getting the thread back on track somewhat, England would never have gone through even if the goal had been allowed (which it clearly should have been). They were p!ss poor, no organisation, no motivation, no movement, no creativity, no communication and no clue. Germany were a well oiled machine, they're a very inexperienced squad compared to England but they moved the ball around well, and though some may scoff and say that their first goal was League 2 hoofball, that's the way that you exploit the awful defending that England were showing.

 

At the stage of International football, I follow Scotland. I've lived my life in England, but parental influence has persuaded me to join the jocks. If you watched 45 minutes of a Scotland game and 45 minutes of an England game, you would see such a vast difference. Obviously there are some primadonnas in the Scotland squad, and technically it's like comparing cabbage to caviar, but the players go out there and give it their all for 90 minutes, and that is what the England team are lacking. With the addition of a talented workhorse like Milner, England looked a lot better as a team against Slovenia than Algeria. Sadly, the modern game has bred this kind of mutual "it's only an international" attitude in most modern day players. Put the '66 team up against the current England team and the '66 team would run rings around our modern day players because they just didn't stop working.

 

I am very annoyed at the goal not being given, and quite sad for the thousands of people who paid copious amounts of money to fly out to SA only to see their national team play so poorly, but surely those happy clappy England fans have realised by now that England were sh1t 10 years ago, are sh1t now and will remain sh1t until somebody comes in to shake things up. Drop the underperformers for the next few games and put in some players that actually give a f*ck, if the manager can find any.

[Wiltshire Saint]

Says a lot about the kid of person you are that you find soldiers being killed or maimed in Afghanistan as some sort of topic for humour or a p*ssing contest.

 

I don't find it funny.....I find it slightly offensive that you compare a game of football with war. You're the one with no respect. We lost in the World Cup.....booo hoooo, so f*cking what? Is it a surprise to you? Do you really think those players went out to lose on purpose? They're just not good enough, simple as that. You're the one using the death of soldiers as some sort of p*ssing contest - how dare you compare what they do with a bunch of men who just so happen to play football. You need to learn the following:

 

1. Not to overact to the result of a football game

2. Not to devalue the lives of soldiers who die, fighting a war that no-one want to fight, by comparing them to players in a game designed for fun.

 

Get a grip.

[Andy_Porter]

Getting the thread back on track somewhat, England would never have gone through even if the goal had been allowed (which it clearly should have been). They were p!ss poor, no organisation, no motivation, no movement, no creativity, no communication and no clue. Germany were a well oiled machine, they're a very inexperienced squad compared to England but they moved the ball around well, and though some may scoff and say that their first goal was League 2 hoofball, that's the way that you exploit the awful defending that England were showing.

 

 

Have we got any proper creative players? last one was Paul Scholes IMO.

 

Sad state of affairs.

[SuperMikey]

Have we got any proper creative players? last one was Paul Scholes IMO.

 

Sad state of affairs.

 

I'd argue that Joe Cole is quite a creative player, but aside from him and perhaps Beckham, nobody springs to mind.

[Thedelldays]

Have we got any proper creative players? last one was Paul Scholes IMO.

 

Sad state of affairs.

 

the germans gave ozil a free role...pretty much popping up all round midfield and was good at carrying the ball and making cute passes..

joe cole is as close as we have to that...I am sure that he could do well if you was given a similar role for england

[Gorgiesaint]

the germans gave ozil a free role...pretty much popping up all round midfield and was good at carrying the ball and making cute passes..

joe cole is as close as we have to that...I am sure that he could do well if you was given a similar role for england

 

The other alternative is Jack Wilshire of Arsenal - but it would take a complete change in direction from England management to pick him. That said, he has to be in the squas together with some of the other u-21 players who got us to the Euro u-21 final last summer (yes, we got beat by the Germans). We also have the u-17 side who I believe have just won the Euro Championship for their age group earlier this summer so there is some hope.

[Frank's cousin]

Have we got any proper creative players? last one was Paul Scholes IMO.

 

Sad state of affairs.

 

Paul Scholes! Sorry, but if he is considered the height of our creativity, then it really demonstrates teh problem we have.

 

The prem league is exciting,its fast and at teh top teh quality of the football is good... so why is it that the English players who mostly play at thate level simply cant do the job on the international stage?

 

I think its in part down to the clubs and as mentioned before - the coaching at development level - we look for big, strong kids or pacey ones, and ignore th smaller kids - creativty is not encouraged... at te top teh likes of Lamapard and Gerrard and Rooney play well when surround by creative talent from abroad - remove that talent and we are just back to strength, pace and robust Englishness - now that is not a bad thing, It will be successful against smaller less talented sides and will probably be enough to qualify us for tournaments as we hav seen, but against sides that pass with pace , move and create, even in teh middle tier we will struggle, because the game has moved on, yet we are stuck with coaches that are predominently old school in ideas (and we have about 10th of the level of pro coaches that teach in clubs and schools on the continent), who still look for the big kids...

 

We need to encourage greater freedom, we need to develop creative players and skills and value these gifted individuals - yet we tag them luxury (says it all) - and build sides around them. Prem chairman and mangers play their part too - by buying cretaivity from abroad, they overlook the talent we do have at a younger age group - who become dissillusioned or change their game, or they buy it up and stick it on the bench stifling their development

 

Did anyone see that self interested tosser, the Wigan Chairman last night insisting the prem take over the England side and Wembley?

 

Jeez, whats next everything... Is it just me or do more tfans think that since the advent of the selfishness of the prem and the greed its encouraged we have gone backwards in terms of the national side and youth dvelopment as the vast majority of cash in teh game ends up in the pockets of players and agents? They should be taking a long hard look at themselves as well, and not plotting to take over even more of the game when they cant even run tehir own house for the GOOD of the GAME and its fans

[dubai_phil]

Paul Scholes! Sorry, but if he is considered the height of our creativity, then it really demonstrates teh problem we have.

 

The prem league is exciting,its fast and at teh top teh quality of the football is good... so why is it that the English players who mostly play at thate level simply cant do the job on the international stage?

 

I think its in part down to the clubs and as mentioned before - the coaching at development level - we look for big, strong kids or pacey ones, and ignore th smaller kids - creativty is not encouraged... at te top teh likes of Lamapard and Gerrard and Rooney play well when surround by creative talent from abroad - remove that talent and we are just back to strength, pace and robust Englishness - now that is not a bad thing, It will be successful against smaller less talented sides and will probably be enough to qualify us for tournaments as we hav seen, but against sides that pass with pace , move and create, even in teh middle tier we will struggle, because the game has moved on, yet we are stuck with coaches that are predominently old school in ideas (and we have about 10th of the level of pro coaches that teach in clubs and schools on the continent), who still look for the big kids...

 

We need to encourage greater freedom, we need to develop creative players and skills and value these gifted individuals - yet we tag them luxury (says it all) - and build sides around them. Prem chairman and mangers play their part too - by buying cretaivity from abroad, they overlook the talent we do have at a younger age group - who become dissillusioned or change their game, or they buy it up and stick it on the bench stifling their development

 

Did anyone see that self interested tosser, the Wigan Chairman last night insisting the prem take over the England side and Wembley?

 

Jeez, whats next everything... Is it just me or do more tfans think that since the advent of the selfishness of the prem and the greed its encouraged we have gone backwards in terms of the national side and youth dvelopment as the vast majority of cash in teh game ends up in the pockets of players and agents? They should be taking a long hard look at themselves as well, and not plotting to take over even more of the game when they cant even run tehir own house for the GOOD of the GAME and its fans

 

True.

 

but the trouble is Frank, you and the others on here all contribute to this. You all watch games on TV and pay money to Sky or go to pubs so they can pay Sky.

 

In another few weeks, the fans of the PL clubs will be baying for blood, they'll howl at the player who slows down a "quick break" so they can make an accurate pass instead of a ball into space. They'll be accused of lacking passion, not being fit to wear the shirt etc.

 

Teams at the World Cup do simple things cleverly and quickly, the playmakers in midfield as the ball comes out of defence do things that to Saints fans would make them "anonymous" the players who break up or delay play by positioning, - you watch at SMS the number of times people will be screaming for Morgan to "get on with it" get it forward etc (IF he is still woth us). Lallana getting stick for running into blind alleys or not releasing the ball quickly enough.

 

It isn't SIMPLY the PL, it isn't simply the English Players, it is the fans who EXPECT 160mph football.

 

Interesting comment in one of the papers today - Torres looks rubbish, Pienaar looked rubbish, star players for their teams suffering the burn out we saw from team England. The exception looks like being Tevez, but then he didn't start every game last season as I recall.

 

English FANS are as much to blame. The money comes from THEM, they keep paying for the product so the product will not change.

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting comment in one of the papers today - Torres looks rubbish, Pienaar looked rubbish, star players for their teams suffering the burn out we saw from team England. The exception looks like being Tevez, but then he didn't start every game last season as I recall.

Martin Samuel in the Mail today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1290396/MARTIN-SAMUEL-There-thing-tired-England--excuses.html

 

Carlos Tevez 40 games

Gareth Barry 43

Dirk Kuyt 53

Steven Gerrard 49

Nigel de jong 42

Javier Mascherano 45

Glen Johnson 34

 

And some of these had long flights for qualifying tournaments.

Edited 29 June, 2010 by Whitey Grandad
I hate it when people can't spell names correctly

[alpine_saint]

Martinn Samuel in the Mail today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1290396/MARTIN-SAMUEL-There-thing-tired-England--excuses.html

 

Carlos Tevez 40 games

Gareth Barry 43

Dirk Kuyt 53

Steven Gerrard 49

Nigel de jong 42

Javier Mascherano 45

Glen Johnson 34

 

And some of these had long flights for qualifying tournaments.

 

Damning statistics for England, methinks...

 

I liked the criticism from Juan Sebastian Veron about how we do things, also in the Mail yesterday.

 

He reckoned when he was at ManYoo, they'd turn up in training and wouldnt do any proper preparation like warm-up.

 

It would be -5degC, and Paul Scholes would go straight out and tw*t the ball 50 yds into an empty net. He reckoned if he did that he would have pulled every muscle in his leg from thigh to ankle.

 

Our football really is in the Dark Ages, along with many other things about our country.

Edited 29 June, 2010 by alpine_saint

[Smirking_Saint]

Paul Scholes! Sorry, but if he is considered the height of our creativity, then it really demonstrates teh problem we have.

 

The prem league is exciting,its fast and at teh top teh quality of the football is good... so why is it that the English players who mostly play at thate level simply cant do the job on the international stage?

 

I think its in part down to the clubs and as mentioned before - the coaching at development level - we look for big, strong kids or pacey ones, and ignore th smaller kids - creativty is not encouraged... at te top teh likes of Lamapard and Gerrard and Rooney play well when surround by creative talent from abroad - remove that talent and we are just back to strength, pace and robust Englishness - now that is not a bad thing, It will be successful against smaller less talented sides and will probably be enough to qualify us for tournaments as we hav seen, but against sides that pass with pace , move and create, even in teh middle tier we will struggle, because the game has moved on, yet we are stuck with coaches that are predominently old school in ideas (and we have about 10th of the level of pro coaches that teach in clubs and schools on the continent), who still look for the big kids...

 

We need to encourage greater freedom, we need to develop creative players and skills and value these gifted individuals - yet we tag them luxury (says it all) - and build sides around them. Prem chairman and mangers play their part too - by buying cretaivity from abroad, they overlook the talent we do have at a younger age group - who become dissillusioned or change their game, or they buy it up and stick it on the bench stifling their development

 

Did anyone see that self interested tosser, the Wigan Chairman last night insisting the prem take over the England side and Wembley?

 

Jeez, whats next everything... Is it just me or do more tfans think that since the advent of the selfishness of the prem and the greed its encouraged we have gone backwards in terms of the national side and youth dvelopment as the vast majority of cash in teh game ends up in the pockets of players and agents? They should be taking a long hard look at themselves as well, and not plotting to take over even more of the game when they cant even run tehir own house for the GOOD of the GAME and its fans

 

Very good post, although i would argue that Paul Scholes is a wonderful and talented midfielder and probably would still DAVGJ for england.

 

There was also a reason that Fergie would never sell Scholes yet allow Beckham to move on.

[alpine_saint]

Scholes would have made that ridiculous mis-firing midfield work a lot better, purely by the act of displacing Lampard, before even considering his contribution.

[skintsaint]

and everyone was moaning about the lack of pace....so bringing Scholes in would of not have improved us much at all.

[Smirking_Saint]

and everyone was moaning about the lack of pace....so bringing Scholes in would of not have improved us much at all.

 

Pace in the middle of the park is not AS bad as having the slowest back two in the world (terry/Carra) and having no genuine pace on the flanks.

 

That was a big problem, and you only have to look at how the Germans managed it. Khedira and Schweinsteiger are not the most pacy but very able to find the passes to the quicker Podolski, Mueller and Oezil.

 

It also doesn't help that we play the age old formation of 44 f*cking 2

[Dog]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=269_1277752143

[Doctoroncall]

It would be interesting to see the distribution of English players through the PL teams. I suspect more would be in those teams that are focused in staying in PL, whose tactics are to stiffle the opposition and counter attack or play the long ball upfront while playing at top speed. If perhaps there was less fear of failure, players could play more of a passing game but that brings up another problem, especially with the game being played at such pace - the players lack the ability to pass accurately and have close control of the ball.

 

Since the 1950's when Hungary showed how to play the passing game, the FA/clubs have never been keen on innovation. Think of how many great coaches from these shores have gone abroad to ply their trade while the English took pride in physical prowess. Chapman was probably the last innovator with his WM formation in the English game and that was over 70 years ago.

[SFKA South Woodford]

Paul Scholes! Sorry, but if he is considered the height of our creativity, then it really demonstrates teh problem we have.

 

The prem league is exciting,its fast and at teh top teh quality of the football is good... so why is it that the English players who mostly play at thate level simply cant do the job on the international stage?

 

I think its in part down to the clubs and as mentioned before - the coaching at development level - we look for big, strong kids or pacey ones, and ignore th smaller kids - creativty is not encouraged... at te top teh likes of Lamapard and Gerrard and Rooney play well when surround by creative talent from abroad - remove that talent and we are just back to strength, pace and robust Englishness - now that is not a bad thing, It will be successful against smaller less talented sides and will probably be enough to qualify us for tournaments as we hav seen, but against sides that pass with pace , move and create, even in teh middle tier we will struggle, because the game has moved on, yet we are stuck with coaches that are predominently old school in ideas (and we have about 10th of the level of pro coaches that teach in clubs and schools on the continent), who still look for the big kids...

 

We need to encourage greater freedom, we need to develop creative players and skills and value these gifted individuals - yet we tag them luxury (says it all) - and build sides around them. Prem chairman and mangers play their part too - by buying cretaivity from abroad, they overlook the talent we do have at a younger age group - who become dissillusioned or change their game, or they buy it up and stick it on the bench stifling their development

 

Did anyone see that self interested tosser, the Wigan Chairman last night insisting the prem take over the England side and Wembley?

 

Jeez, whats next everything... Is it just me or do more tfans think that since the advent of the selfishness of the prem and the greed its encouraged we have gone backwards in terms of the national side and youth dvelopment as the vast majority of cash in teh game ends up in the pockets of players and agents? They should be taking a long hard look at themselves as well, and not plotting to take over even more of the game when they cant even run tehir own house for the GOOD of the GAME and its fans

 

Agree with almost all you say there Frank.

 

The exceptions being with reference to passing and fast attacking football.

 

If you look at the way all of the good teams in this World Cup and most of the South American sides pass, they are very precise with their passes and do not have to pass with pace as a result. One of the downfalls of the England squad is that they whack the ball at each other when they are trying to pass precisely, meaning that the effectiveness of any pass is lost because of the recipients inability to then control the ball. Coaches in this country need to preach precise passing with a stroke of the boot, rather than a blast. If you look at Tiss for example he never whacked the ball, but stroked it around the pitch, as does David Beckham, and they are the only two English players of recent years that could also take a decent corner, which is no coincedence. Threading passes properley keeps possesion and usually creates goals, something that this England team have been found wanting for.

 

As for fast attacking football, it can sometimes be the only way to break down a stubborn opposition, but again the quality of the passing is is the key to it's effectiveness, even a pass into space needs to be accurate for a pacy winger or striker to get to it before the opposition defender does. If you look at Arsenal and Barcelona, they both play fast attcking football and one is regarded as the best and most entertaining club team in the world, and the other is widely regarded as the most entertaining team to watch in what is regarded as the most exciting league in the world.

 

The most glaring thing that has come out of Engands dismal performances for me though, is the inability of any of our players to turn on the ball, the only player I can remember even attempting to do so was Heskey, who then promptly fell over it. This urgently needs to be addressed in my opinion especially if our national team sticks with the counter attacking style of play, as any momentum is lost playing the ball 30 yards back to a central defender as Lampard did so many times in those four games.

[norwaysaint]

 

Only deluded academic snobs and Guardianistas would try to turn this into some sort of high-brow philosophical exercise the way you have. Do you even know what "satire" means ? It means "take the p*ss". Fine, he took the p*ss out of me as he is entitled to, but the material he chose was opportunistic and distasteful.

 

I suppose you are a fan of that serious intellectual wit and "brilliant mind" Frankie Boyle....

 

As I said, you have no understanding of what satire is. Jim Davidson takes the ****, do you consider him a satirist? Do you consider the great political satire of the last 50 years, for example, David Frost at his peak, to be simply "taking the ****" without highlighting serious matters? For that matter, if you think that people ridiculing your statements to be unacceptable as there are soldiers mentioned, do you also believe that political satirists are attacking the concept of democracy? Or just some silly people saying silly things?

 

As you don't understand what satire actually is, here's a very simple quote from a simple source:

 

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its purpose is often not so much humour for its own sake as an attack on something strongly disapproved by the satirist, using the weapon of wit.

 

How are you getting on finding a single example of me criticising you before by the way?

 

And "a high brow philosophical exercise"? Really? This? All I've done is tell you what satire is, as it was going way over your head.

[alpine_saint]

As I said, you have no understanding of what satire is. Jim Davidson takes the ****, do you consider him a satirist? Do you consider the great political satire of the last 50 years, for example, David Frost at his peak, to be simply "taking the ****" without highlighting serious matters? For that matter, if you think that people ridiculing your statements to be unacceptable as there are soldiers mentioned, do you also believe that political satirists are attacking the concept of democracy? Or just some silly people saying silly things?

 

As you don't understand what satire actually is, here's a very simple quote from a simple source:

 

 

 

How are you getting on finding a single example of me criticising you before by the way?

 

And "a high brow philosophical exercise"? Really? This? All I've done is tell you what satire is, as it was going way over your head.

 

yawn.....

 

go out and get a life...