How long until England can compete with the best?

[No Fixed Abode]

Gerrard is one of England's best players. Your argument is invalid.

The back four plus Hart were Englands best players. The non existent midfield was one of our major problems - not skilful enough and not good enough to keep the ball. Technically inferior. When the ball was blocked/won by the back four and given to the midfield, they just gave the ball back time after time. Gerrard/Parker were destroyed by Pirlo. His movement, touch and vision was far superior.

[RFCSPACE]

Bring back Paul Scholes and all will be solved. He's as good as Pirlo and Xavi. Exactly the type of possession player we need.

Obviously given the nature of the topic, we're essentially waiting for a new Paul Scholes. Wilshere is the only realistic option I can think of for the forseeable future.

[Zaretsky]

England achieve what should statistically be expected of a team/country of our size/wealth/history in the sport.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

England achieve what should statistically be expected of a team/country of our size/wealth/history in the sport.

Do we? I'd say we achieve considerably less.

We've made the semi finals of tournaments, for example, four times ever.

Compare that to Germany (20), Italy (13), France (9), Spain (6), NL (9), Czech (7), Russia (7), and it puts us firmly in the also rans category. And two of those semis have been on home soil.

Maybe you think England should have a record on par with Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, but I'd suggest we should be challenging rather more often.

[Ian Royal]

We should be making QF of the Euros and QF of the Worlds, with the occasional SF thrown in.

We're rightly consistently behind Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France & Netherlands. With the latter three to a lesser extent (other than Spain's current team) because they have a tradition of hilariously exploding, rather than just being not quite good enough.

If we sort out our grass roots, rely less heavily on foreign imports and learn some patience in possession then there's no reason why we can't compete on a (nearly) level footing with any of them.

Although I think the problem is also partly cultural for us as we do seem to see plenty of players with undoubted talent destroy themselves, even once they've made it. So I dread to think how many drop out in favour of drink / drugs over training hard.

[Zaretsky]

England achieve what should statistically be expected of a team/country of our size/wealth/history in the sport.

Do we? I'd say we achieve considerably less.

We've made the semi finals of tournaments, for example, four times ever.

Compare that to Germany (20), Italy (13), France (9), Spain (6), NL (9), Czech (7), Russia (7), and it puts us firmly in the also rans category. And two of those semis have been on home soil.

Maybe you think England should have a record on par with Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, but I'd suggest we should be challenging rather more often.

It's not really a question of judgement calls as such, just read 'Why England Lose etc'. For example, 5 of the countries you list have spent significant periods under some form of dictatorial rule, which actually enables an easier movement of resources by the political centre to particular initiatives (and sport is often a great flagship for dictatorships). The effects on sporting culture often outlast the dictatorship. Just an example.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

England achieve what should statistically be expected of a team/country of our size/wealth/history in the sport.

Do we? I'd say we achieve considerably less.

We've made the semi finals of tournaments, for example, four times ever.

Compare that to Germany (20), Italy (13), France (9), Spain (6), NL (9), Czech (7), Russia (7), and it puts us firmly in the also rans category. And two of those semis have been on home soil.

Maybe you think England should have a record on par with Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, but I'd suggest we should be challenging rather more often.

It's not really a question of judgement calls as such, just read 'Why England Lose etc'. For example, 5 of the countries you list have spent significant periods under some form of dictatorial rule, which actually enables an easier movement of resources by the political centre to particular initiatives (and sport is often a great flagship for dictatorships). The effects on sporting culture often outlast the dictatorship. Just an example.

so when you said we do as well as should be expected, who exactly were you comparing us to?

We tend to see reaching the QF as a pass mark. For a nation of our size, wealth, passion for the the game etc we should be regarding it as the minimum requirement.

Instead, as we have done in every single tournament since 1966, we go out in the knockout stages to the very first decent team we face. The only exception is Spain in 2006, who we beat on penalties.

[Zaretsky]

so when you said we do as well as should be expected, who exactly were you comparing us to?

We tend to see reaching the QF as a pass mark. For a nation of our size, wealth, passion for the the game etc we should be regarding it as the minimum requirement.

Instead, as we have done in every single tournament since 1966, we go out in the knockout stages to the very first decent team we face. The only exception is Spain in 2006, who we beat on penalties.

Those exact teams you mention but I'm pointing out there are more reasons than just those you mention and the opinion that 'well, I just reckon we should do better than we do'. Take into account our size, wealth, passion (overrated - cheering loudly doesn't really win you football games) as well as all numerous other crucial factors. Read the book - it really is worth it.

Besides, surely getting a 'pass mark' is a sign of doing as well as we should be?

NB Spain on penalties was 96.

[Ian Royal]

I'd judge it against our world ranking personally, although that's a bit circular.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Besides, surely getting a 'pass mark' is a sign of doing as well as we should be?

It would be if we did it every single time, or exceeded that pass mark as often as we failed to match it.

As it is we've made the QF/Last 8 thirteen times in the 29 tournaments we've played in. We've only done better than that four times though, while failing to achieve that "pass mark" twelve times.

That means that while we tend to regard reaching the quarters as being our normal achievement, we actually fail to get that far 40% of the time.

[Zaretsky]

Definitely read the book. They say it much better than me. It's by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski.

It's called 'Why England Lose: and other curious phenomena explained' and it's actually really worth reading anyway. (The Dutch even manage to make shtatishticsh shexy)

[Hoop Blah]

Surely the book is detailing reasons why we underperform in relation to our relative resources.

You seem to be arguing that we're not underperforming because there are reasons to explain it.

To my mind we have underperformed. Football is our national sport and we've got massive footballing resources yet we're not as successful as our peers, and the likes of the Dutch out perform us.

[Alan Partridge]

What gets me is everyone was talking about 'lower expectations' and as soon as we get knocked out in the Q Finals it's 'underperformed' again. You can't have it both ways.

It's an excuse but it's fact, in recent years England have been desperately unlucky with injuries to key players at the wrong times. Beckham, Owen, Rooney all had injuries they tried to patch up before major tournaments which completely backfired. This tournament it's England B team simple as that. Throughout the entire side is a cluster of injuries meaning backup to backup players have been called up to the squad. I've never seen so many 'standby' players get the call up before.

They've also been unlucky in terms of they never seem to win a shootout when they get to this stage, if they'd won a couple of them we'd be talking about 5 or 6 semi finals which isn't a bad effort then.

There are flaws to our game of course but I simply don't think you can judge Hodgson or this England team on this tournaments showing because they made the best of the very limited resources they had left by June. If you don't have the players available then you have to play a defensive games and make yourselves tough to beat. Otherwise you get blown away like Ireland did.

I think England have some promising young midfielders that aren't the typical English mould and are more of a European style. The likes of Wilshere, Huddlestone, Cleverley and Rodwell are more attacking based and more comfortable in posession than the likes of Parker and Barry, even our young defenders like Jones, Smalling to a lesser extent Cahill aren't just get it and lump it types and with Kyle Walker to come in at right back I think he'd give a more sound defensive option but not compromise the attacking threat. I think with the introduction of these lads, coupled with the excellent Hart, Rooney and hopefully the development of Ox-Chamberlain, Walcott, Young, Rooney etc it should give a more exciting attacking look to the squad long term.

The areas for concern are a partner for Rooney as I don't think we've got another really good centre forward in the country, a lot of reasonable options but ntohing stand out and a long term replacement for Ashley Cole, maybe Kieran Gibbs if he can become a mainstay for Arsenal might be the one. i actually think the future for England looks a lot brighter than some make out.

Lets judge England in the now and present when Hodgson can actually pick the team he wants and play the way he wants rather than being forced into picking some of the lads in the Euro12 squad.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

What gets me is everyone was talking about 'lower expectations' and as soon as we get knocked out in the Q Finals it's 'underperformed' again. You can't have it both ways. .

It's about underperforming in general, not this year.

If the QFs are the pass mark, how do you rate a nation that fails to achieve that pass mark over 40% of the time?

The regular QF appearances tend to have fans thinking of us as being typically a 5th-8th best team, when the reality is that we are more like 12th best, based on historical finishes.

[Hoop Blah]

Our European peers, in terms of population and participation are the French, Italians and Spainish. Germany are quite a bit bigger in terms of population, and so presumably in number of players.

Although I kind of agree with the point about being unlucky in shoot outs making our record look worse than it could be (although our record compared to the Germans would say it's more than just luck at play) we haven't performed as well as our peers when it matters.

I think that's the point being made. We should have a better record, long term, than we do. It's not just about lower expectations for this, or any other group of players, it's about how we're turning our resources into success.

[Zaretsky]

Surely the book is detailing reasons why we underperform in relation to our relative resources.

You seem to be arguing that we're not underperforming because there are reasons to explain it.

To my mind we have underperformed. Football is our national sport and we've got massive footballing resources yet we're not as successful as our peers, and the likes of the Dutch out perform us.

No, the title is deliberately misleading and plays on the assumption/feeling/instinct that England under-perform. That's actually only one chapter but it also talks about other football myths/assumptions and uses statistics quite playfully and creatively to demonstrate that traditional or received wisdom in football can often be quite misleading and incorrect. Another chapter tests the idea that the English are the most passionate footballing nation (and it comes out with some surprising results).

[Alan Partridge]

Just don't see the point in looking back at the past, the game has changed, the way of doing things in terms of setting teams up is changing and England do need to adapt to that better. The thing is I think we are starting to see some of these younger lads have that European mindset more than the traditional English mindset of 100mph football, sliding tackles, kicking it away that sort of stuff. The problem was we were robbed of the chance of doing that in this tournament completely. So we were forced into two banks of 4 and we were forced into playing a more 'English' game, with 2 CM's that are around the 30 yrs old mark who both had Q marks over their fitness from the outset. We had no backup left in that position and with games thick and fast, in hot conditions it was always going tot ake it's toll.

International football obviously is just a completely different game to club football, you've got what you've got and that's it. Sometimes the crop is decent sometimes it isn't and you're stuck with it. It's about trying to make the best of it. Be it the way you set up or if you have 1 star player getting the best out of him.

I think you have to judge each tournament on it's merits and as a seperate issue from previous tournaments and future tournaments with all things considered to see whether it was succesfull or not. I'd say England with the group they had and the players they didn't have, to get to the Q Finals and lose on pens was a decent return from this tournament personally.

[Zaretsky]

Although I kind of agree with the point about being unlucky in shoot outs making our record look worse than it could be (although our record compared to the Germans would say it's more than just luck at play) we haven't performed as well as our peers when it matters.

And another chapter demonstrates how penalty shootouts has nothing (or an tiny fraction) to do with luck.

[Hoop Blah]

You have to look back and learn lessons from history though AP.

thing is I think we are starting to see some of these younger lads have that European mindset more than the traditional English mindset of 100mph football, sliding tackles, kicking it away that sort of stuff.

I totally agree with this though, and it's why I keep harping on about/defending the work that's gone on by the FA to revamp youth football already. It seems that all we have to do is lose for the screams for a complete overhaul of grassroots and coaching to come up again.

We really are seeing a more technical and modern set of players coming through across the division these days, certainly compared to 20 years ago, and that's the fruit of the changes made years ago. It should always be evolved and improved, but the rubbish that gets spouted about a complete change needed is just daft.

[Hoop Blah]

Although I kind of agree with the point about being unlucky in shoot outs making our record look worse than it could be (although our record compared to the Germans would say it's more than just luck at play) we haven't performed as well as our peers when it matters.

And another chapter demonstrates how penalty shootouts has nothing (or an tiny fraction) to do with luck.

It's not luck as such, that's just a lazy term I used, but there is a very fine line between success and failure and were were inches from winning that penalty shoot out. There isn't a doubt that Ashley Young is good enough to score a penalty in a penalty shoot out, as there wasn't with Baggio in '94 or Shevchenko in normal time against Liverpool having scored the crucial shoot out pen for Milan against Juve previously. They've all missed though.

It's not luck as such that someone scores or misses a penalty, it's just the way things work out and, of course, how you deal with the pressure at the time to recreate the right strike.

We could easily have won a few of those shoot outs, but we didn't.