Why did England fail between 05-10 if they had so many 'world class' players?

Scroll to see replies

If England had beaten Brazil in the 2002 QF I have no doubt that they'd have won that World Cup. The other nations left in the tournament were Turkey, South Korea and a very weak Germany, England had got through the 'group of death' and gave Brazil a very good game.

Don't forget that they had Neville & Gerrard injured so they had to play Danny Mills & Trevor Sinclair, as well as a clearly past it David Seaman.

.

lol, Trevor Sinclair. smh :rolleyes:

It was a ludicrous tournament. I think England would have won at a canter after Brazil yeah but it's not saying much. Had Ireland beaten Spain, as they almost did, they'd have gone on to play South Korea before probably beating Turkey in the 3rd place play off FFS

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 41

Mackay

Looking at some of England's previous tournament squads, there are some really bizarre players in there.

Reply 42

doobucks

You realise that Englands team had no pace whatsoever(cole wasn't fast just a good dribbler), no defensive midfielder and Michael Owen was injured in the world cup.

The team basically had a very good central midfield, one good striker and a beast defence man for man. Only time they realistically had a chance of winning something were 02 and 04 tournaments.

Reply 43

ZÃ¼rich

Original post by jam277

England's lack of pace from wing back position no doubt hurt them as much as anything. Gary Neville was obviously a great player but from a tactical perspective you'd want some overlapping width with so many central mid players but as usual England just stick the best individuals in and hope it comes to something. Sven obviously knew as well with Walcott in the squad but he loved his favourites too much to really address these issues.

England rarely attacked in a fluid way around that period. Lots of set pieces, lots of individual goals really.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 44

doobucks

Original post by Zürich

England's lack of pace from wing back position no doubt hurt them as much as anything. Gary Neville was obviously a great player but from a tactical perspective you'd want some overlapping width with so many central mid players but as usual England just stick the best individuals in and hope it comes to something.

Italy had similar issues but they always seemed to manage to find solutions

Italy's solutions were Pirlo, Del Piero and Totti. They used the diamond and packed the midfield while England decided to play the flat 4-4-2 with Central players/slow wingers out wide. England were mismanaged so badly but their team was always very unbalanced, it was the kinda team that needed a pure tactician to use.

Reply 45

The_Mighty_Bush

They had some very good players, but the tactics were never going to get the best out of the players. 4-4-2 with no defensive midfielder or passing playmaker...

Reply 46

ozzyoscy

There are many reasons, but the best teams with some top players are the ones that win World Cups. If 2002 was a Euro year, England may have another trophy right now.

- England have lacked strikers to score the goals. They arguably have Rooney now, but that's it. Owen was always injured. They also had a couple of in-form strikers but poor management meant they never got played, and when a tournament came up they were left with no experienced international goalscorers because they'd play the same players on name alone. More below.

- England never understood friendlies. While all the other top teams were using it to get new players and goalkeepers experience, and getting the team familiar with plan Bs and plan Cs, England were treating them like competitive matches, playing the same freaking full-strength line-up every time. This led to an insane going through the motions for a few years where England would always go behind, then make a comeback in nearly every friendly. Media and managers called them a waste of time, and England certainly made them a waste of time. This also led to decisions like 2006 vs Croatia, where McClaren dropped his keeper and replaced him with a rookie, because he hadn't been used in friendlies. Or most tournament squad selections where the managers were clueless as to who else to bring because they didn't know anything about the other players.

- Awful management. The last competent manager was Glenn Hoddle.

First was Keegan, who isn't exactly a master tactician.

Then they had Sven, who simply isn't a World Cup challenging manager to say the least, perhaps because he only follows the money. He has no interest in the teams themselves. If there's money or women, he's there, even if he's already rich or already with someone. He had a good run with Lazio and he's been living off that ever since. He hasn't just flopped at all his other jobs, but completely destroyed the teams. For example, his next international job was Mexico and he managed to nearly get them knocked out in the second round of qualifying, scraping through on goal difference. Soon as he left, they immediately won the Gold Cup, beating the U.S. 5-0 in the final.

With England, he was happy scraping through with 0-0s and 1-0s, beating teams below them and losing to teams above them. So they lost to 10-man Brazil and left 2006 with a whimper.

Next was McClaren, who backed his out-of-form keeper only to change him with a rookie on a rainy night in the deciding match. What happened was inevitable and predictable.

Then Capello, who seemed to have an aneurysm and turned from a top manager into Dave "4-4-****ing-2" Bassett.

Roy Hodgson has done an alright job given the players he has and has picked well, but has fallen foul of friendlies as above. Maybe the removal of friendlies will fix it, maybe it'll make it worse.

- Choking. England don't want to win. They're scared to. They'd much rather go behind, then if they lose, they lose. If they draw or win, they've shown 'heart' and 'fight'. Winning outright means they'll be expected to win again. It's a subconscious thing.