When are England going to play some away friendlies in S. America/similar climates? Watch

Meat is Murder
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
(Original post by TRS-T)
You say that but Spain are playing in Africa and I haven't heard Arsenal (Monreal & Cazorla), Man City (Negredo & Navas) or Chelsea (Mata) complaining.
The time difference with Africa is negligible, not so with South America.

(Original post by Genocidal)
Total rubbish. We were playing in a group with terrible teams with no hope of qualifying for the World Cup. Only Ukraine stood a chance. Replay those games again and it could quite easily have been England finishing 2nd. There was no comprehensive victory.

Now if we look at the good teams, such as Belgium, they qualified comfortably. England had to fight until the end in a group filled with only one other really competitive team.

Any reason for that? It's not something always followed by other countries, and nor is such a thing in the rules, like it is for players.

I've yet to hear any compelling reason as to why that should be the case. And please don't try to compare it with the players on the pitch. We're talking about a member of the off-pitch staff.
Ukraine just beat France 2 - 0 and will likely be at the world cup!

England have such potential that I would never rule them out.

I don't get friendlies at all. None of those who played against Chile will start at the world cup so why play them? We need those who will start in Brazil to gel as a team and get used to playing with each other. Bringing on Barkely with 20 mins to go was pointless (unless it was for an injury and if so far enough).
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by Meat is Murder)
I don't get friendlies at all. None of those who played against Chile will start at the world cup so why play them? We need those who will start in Brazil to gel as a team and get used to playing with each other. Bringing on Barkely with 20 mins to go was pointless (unless it was for an injury and if so far enough).
To give them, especially the rookies, experience of playing with the team and in an international environement. A massive criticism for years and recently is that England have wasted friendlies by playing their strongest teams because the manager's too scared of losing, which has led to friendlies being viewed as pointless, because they were. No one remembers the 2-0 win in a friendly against Bulgaria in 2002 or whatever, they remember tournaments, so it's stupid. Goalkeepers especially need to be played in friendlies, otherwise you end up with the Euro 2008 qualifying situation with Robinson and Carson, where picking or dropping your 'only' keeper are both massive risks, which with Hart's form is happening yet again.

This is why, while the choice of opposition was good, playing it at home was utterly pointless. Players need to know what it's like playing in Brazil, avoid suffering a culture shock. When the World Cup's in France, it's not an issue, but this is really a foreign country.
0
reply
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by TRS-T)
Anyone who finishes top of their group is clearly above average.

If we were average we would have finished 3rd or 4th.

An average European team is someone like Hungary.

The reason they never qualify is because they are average.

And because it's the England team. It's not club football.

Getting a foreign manager is like getting a foreign player to help you.

You never see Germany, Italy, Spain, France or Holland getting foreign managers do you?

Because it's embarrassing for any top nation to have a foreign manager.

Even people like Croatia and Ukraine don't use foreign managers.
That's not the case at all. If an average team is in a group full of below average teams it doesn't make the average team anything more than average. We have to look at it in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly place no value on the FIFA world rankings for a start.

No, it's not like getting a foreign player to help you. The main difference is a manager isn't actually on the pitch. I suppose it must be embarrassing to have a foreign member of the coaching staff or a foreign kit man?

The argument over foreign managers is simply England grasping at straws. The only reason this debate ever appeared is because of two unsuccessful foreign managers from before. They have no explanation so the first place to go is the nationality. An English manager must be better, right? Of course, we know that's not the case.

It's not really something to be embarrassed about. I've yet to see any paper or any TV broadcast mock another team or look at them in a negative light because of the nationality of the manager.

Once Roy Hodgson goes it will either be to Harry Redknapp or back to a foreign manager again. Until England find someone successful, regardless of where they're from, this flip flopping back and forth will continue.
0
reply
Genocidal
Badges: 16
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by Meat is Murder)
Ukraine just beat France 2 - 0 and will likely be at the world cup!

England have such potential that I would never rule them out.

I don't get friendlies at all. None of those who played against Chile will start at the world cup so why play them? We need those who will start in Brazil to gel as a team and get used to playing with each other. Bringing on Barkely with 20 mins to go was pointless (unless it was for an injury and if so far enough).
That is true, but we have to remember France are not a particularly good team at the moment. Apart from Spain, they were in a group with Belarus, Finland, and Georgia. The only other team with any hope of qualifying was Spain, and they got a draw and a loss against them.

Seeing Ukraine win 2-0 at home isn't really a surprise with the state of the French team. Since the clearing after the last World Cup they haven't really recovered.

Ah this argument over potential again. Honestly, I dismiss every single one of those arguments. England have supposedly had potential since 1966. It's rubbish. Potential is one thing, but if it's not converted into anything it means very little. England's only chance is an uncanny string of luck which sees them play at their very best whilst the other top teams have bad days at the office.

On your last point, I completely agree. In all honesty, those players who pull out with injury I find difficult to trust. They always seem to pull out together and a week later they're playing for their clubs again.
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#25
Genocidal, you told me you're not one of the "England are crap because they're not world beaters" people, but that's all you've been banging on about in your past few posts. Neither extreme is right. England reached the quarters a year ago and have topped their group without being beaten, they are clearly a good team that is still stuck between being not as good as the top sides but better than all the rest (as shown by them constantly finishing in the QFs and second rounds recently).
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
(Original post by River85)
I'm aware the friendlies take place on an international break. However, this doesn't mean to say that it won't tire players out and affect their performance for the club once next weekend comes. I think you underestimate the physical stress not only two games of international football puts players under, but also flying to the other side of the world.
Rugby players in the Super 15 have to travel half way across the world to play each other every other week. I don't think the effects of international travel are as major as some make it out. It is just a case of 'why bother' playing away outside of tournament preparation especially when teams are more than happy to play us at home.
0
reply
TRS-T
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
(Original post by Genocidal)
That's not the case at all. If an average team is in a group full of below average teams it doesn't make the average team anything more than average. We have to look at it in the grand scheme of things, and I certainly place no value on the FIFA world rankings for a start.

No, it's not like getting a foreign player to help you. The main difference is a manager isn't actually on the pitch. I suppose it must be embarrassing to have a foreign member of the coaching staff or a foreign kit man?

The argument over foreign managers is simply England grasping at straws. The only reason this debate ever appeared is because of two unsuccessful foreign managers from before. They have no explanation so the first place to go is the nationality. An English manager must be better, right? Of course, we know that's not the case.

It's not really something to be embarrassed about. I've yet to see any paper or any TV broadcast mock another team or look at them in a negative light because of the nationality of the manager.

Once Roy Hodgson goes it will either be to Harry Redknapp or back to a foreign manager again. Until England find someone successful, regardless of where they're from, this flip flopping back and forth will continue.
If England are average then that means that the vast majority of teams are below average...which makes no sense.

Of course it's like getting a player to help you unless you think that the manager has no influence over the success or failure of the team...in which case why are the paid top dollar by the clubs and not same as the kitman?

It is something to be embarrassed about for any decent respectable football nation not least one with the history of England. Which is why you will never see any top football nation like Brazil or Germany have a foreign manager

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24979747

We were probablly mocked in Italy for having an Italian manger.

Can you imagine Italy having an English manager?

No chance.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (206)
22.17%
The paper was reasonable (395)
42.52%
Not feeling great about that exam... (178)
19.16%
It was TERRIBLE (150)
16.15%

Watched Threads

View All