The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 2]
Discussion
hornetrider said:
Snubs said:
I can't say i watch that much international football; is the stadium always half empty when England play qualifying matches? Has attendance declined? Or is there some weird ticketing arrangement in place?
This is my beef with Wemberley. In a spectacular failure of stadium design and planning they have put the prawn sandwich brigade directly opposite the cameras.Thus they all disappear for a corporate munch at half time and shamefully don't bother returning until they can be arsed, if ever.
This needs addressing as it's an embarrassment at the 'home' of football.
gadgetmac said:
hornetrider said:
Snubs said:
I can't say i watch that much international football; is the stadium always half empty when England play qualifying matches? Has attendance declined? Or is there some weird ticketing arrangement in place?
This is my beef with Wemberley. In a spectacular failure of stadium design and planning they have put the prawn sandwich brigade directly opposite the cameras.Thus they all disappear for a corporate munch at half time and shamefully don't bother returning until they can be arsed, if ever.
This needs addressing as it's an embarrassment at the 'home' of football.
England will never achieve anything until they sort out the qualifying and introduce seeded groups and pre-qualifying.
Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
Then as soon as they play anyone decent, they get a rude awakening. They never get tested in qualifying, no weaknesses are indentifying and no tactics mastered. But because we always qualify, we always get seeded....
No disrespect but 1/3rd of the teams in the qualifying groups are just making up the numbers; Luxembourg, Belarus, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Andorra, San Marino, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Malta, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Albania, Gibraltar, Estonia, Kosovo, Finland, Scotland.....it's at the stage where the groups might be decided by who smashes the most goals past them.
Why don't they have a pre-qualifying tournament of all the lowest ranked teams, the winners then get a place in the qualifying proper? Then less qualifying groups, with better teams in them. So that every game is then competitive.
It's all very well England getting an easy group, so that they are nailed on to qualify for the WC but they will have had no practise against anyone good and will consequently perform badly in the finals.
Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
Then as soon as they play anyone decent, they get a rude awakening. They never get tested in qualifying, no weaknesses are indentifying and no tactics mastered. But because we always qualify, we always get seeded....
No disrespect but 1/3rd of the teams in the qualifying groups are just making up the numbers; Luxembourg, Belarus, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Andorra, San Marino, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Malta, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Albania, Gibraltar, Estonia, Kosovo, Finland, Scotland.....it's at the stage where the groups might be decided by who smashes the most goals past them.
Why don't they have a pre-qualifying tournament of all the lowest ranked teams, the winners then get a place in the qualifying proper? Then less qualifying groups, with better teams in them. So that every game is then competitive.
It's all very well England getting an easy group, so that they are nailed on to qualify for the WC but they will have had no practise against anyone good and will consequently perform badly in the finals.
TEKNOPUG said:
Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
A valid point but it doesn't seem to affect anyone else does it TEKNOPUG said:
England will never achieve anything until they sort out the qualifying and introduce seeded groups and pre-qualifying.
Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
Then as soon as they play anyone decent, they get a rude awakening. They never get tested in qualifying, no weaknesses are indentifying and no tactics mastered. But because we always qualify, we always get seeded....
No disrespect but 1/3rd of the teams in the qualifying groups are just making up the numbers; Luxembourg, Belarus, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Andorra, San Marino, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Malta, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Albania, Gibraltar, Estonia, Kosovo, Finland, Scotland.....it's at the stage where the groups might be decided by who smashes the most goals past them.
Why don't they have a pre-qualifying tournament of all the lowest ranked teams, the winners then get a place in the qualifying proper? Then less qualifying groups, with better teams in them. So that every game is then competitive.
It's all very well England getting an easy group, so that they are nailed on to qualify for the WC but they will have had no practise against anyone good and will consequently perform badly in the finals.
I'd agree with that to a point, Tekno, but surely every seeded team has that issue. France have Belarus & Luxembourg; Portugal have the Faroe Islands, Latvia & Andorra; Spain have Macedonia & Liechtenstein and Belgium have Cyprus, Estonia and Gibraltar!Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
Then as soon as they play anyone decent, they get a rude awakening. They never get tested in qualifying, no weaknesses are indentifying and no tactics mastered. But because we always qualify, we always get seeded....
No disrespect but 1/3rd of the teams in the qualifying groups are just making up the numbers; Luxembourg, Belarus, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Andorra, San Marino, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Malta, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Albania, Gibraltar, Estonia, Kosovo, Finland, Scotland.....it's at the stage where the groups might be decided by who smashes the most goals past them.
Why don't they have a pre-qualifying tournament of all the lowest ranked teams, the winners then get a place in the qualifying proper? Then less qualifying groups, with better teams in them. So that every game is then competitive.
It's all very well England getting an easy group, so that they are nailed on to qualify for the WC but they will have had no practise against anyone good and will consequently perform badly in the finals.
hornetrider said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Because England are seeded, they are yet again in another group of second rate teams and dross. Which means every game the oppo will park the bus, show no ambition and England will consequently stroll round the pitch, winning every game - See Roy's 100% Euro Qualifying.
A valid point but it doesn't seem to affect anyone else does it GloverMart said:
I'd agree with that to a point, Tekno, but surely every seeded team has that issue. France have Belarus & Luxembourg; Portugal have the Faroe Islands, Latvia & Andorra; Spain have Macedonia & Liechtenstein and Belgium have Cyprus, Estonia and Gibraltar!
France also have Netherlands & Sweden, Portugal have Switzerland, Spain have Italy. I just think, for England at least, it's counter-productive being seeded and having an easy qualifying group. We'd be better off not being seeded and in a group with a couple of other decent country's.And yes, I agree, every seeded team has that issue, which is why it should be addressed. It would also make for competitive matches for the lesser countries as they will be playing similar standard sides in a group they can actually win, for a chance against the bigger countries. As opposed to being smashed every game and hoping not finish bottom of the group.
TEKNOPUG said:
GloverMart said:
I'd agree with that to a point, Tekno, but surely every seeded team has that issue. France have Belarus & Luxembourg; Portugal have the Faroe Islands, Latvia & Andorra; Spain have Macedonia & Liechtenstein and Belgium have Cyprus, Estonia and Gibraltar!
France also have Netherlands & Sweden, Portugal have Switzerland, Spain have Italy. I just think, for England at least, it's counter-productive being seeded and having an easy qualifying group. We'd be better off not being seeded and in a group with a couple of other decent country's.And yes, I agree, every seeded team has that issue, which is why it should be addressed. It would also make for competitive matches for the lesser countries as they will be playing similar standard sides in a group they can actually win, for a chance against the bigger countries. As opposed to being smashed every game and hoping not finish bottom of the group.
TEKNOPUG said:
France also have Netherlands & Sweden, Portugal have Switzerland, Spain have Italy. I just think, for England at least, it's counter-productive being seeded and having an easy qualifying group. We'd be better off not being seeded and in a group with a couple of other decent country's.
agree it would be better seeding by performance/progression in tournaments rather than total games won or FIFA ranking (not sure how its done), then Italy would be seeded in top group and England presumably would notTEKNOPUG said:
France also have Netherlands & Sweden, Portugal have Switzerland, Spain have Italy. I just think, for England at least, it's counter-productive being seeded and having an easy qualifying group. We'd be better off not being seeded and in a group with a couple of other decent country's.
And yes, I agree, every seeded team has that issue, which is why it should be addressed. It would also make for competitive matches for the lesser countries as they will be playing similar standard sides in a group they can actually win, for a chance against the bigger countries. As opposed to being smashed every game and hoping not finish bottom of the group.
Wouldn't that mean lower ranked sides definitely getting through to the finals, and hence just push the "problem" to the group stages of those?And yes, I agree, every seeded team has that issue, which is why it should be addressed. It would also make for competitive matches for the lesser countries as they will be playing similar standard sides in a group they can actually win, for a chance against the bigger countries. As opposed to being smashed every game and hoping not finish bottom of the group.
Unless you perpetuate the ideas into the finals. And then you just artificially include low ranked teams who stand no chance (even less than England ) in the knockouts?
The problem with England, IMO, is the dominance of the Premier League. We have too few genuinely talented players across all positions playing very regularly in the top flight. There's no competition for places in most (all?) positions. And I don't feel the drive to play for their country is as strong as it is for securing a place on the bench at a top team for a 6-figure a week pay packet.
I also think we've been trying too many different things in the last nigh on 20yrs. The last decent England manager who understood the English game and players and could get them playing as a team through respect, IMO, was Glen Hoddle.
I had hopes for Allardyce, but it seems that the sort of managers who are likely to be able to get something out of our home grown "talent" always have fairly hefty flaws (even looking at Hoddle and his predecessors perhaps). Maybe we just need to ignore those foibles a little more and persevere...
Murph7355 said:
I had hopes for Allardyce, but it seems that the sort of managers who are likely to be able to get something out of our home grown "talent" always have fairly hefty flaws (even looking at Hoddle and his predecessors perhaps). Maybe we just need to ignore those foibles a little more and persevere...
I think the FANS would but the MEDIA wouldn't. As soon as anyone gets within arms length of the England job, the media would be out to find every little thing they had done wrong. Like you said, some of our top English managers had "issues"... Hoddle, Redknapp, even back to Venables. Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff