Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I trust the FA haven't put money above the England team and have prepared suitable friendlies to allow them to prepare for such foreign surroundings. Some bloke told me they're gonna play Chile, but then he said it was at Wembley, in fact all their next matches are at Wembley, so I knew he was lying. I says to him, I says "if England were playing Chile, they'd do it away from home, what kind of moron would book a home fixture? I know they're playing Germany at home for some birthday thing, but that figures."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    I trust the FA haven't put money above the England team and have prepared suitable friendlies to allow them to prepare for such foreign surroundings. Some bloke told me they're gonna play Chile, but then he said it was at Wembley, in fact all their next matches are at Wembley, so I knew he was lying. I says to him, I says "if England were playing Chile, they'd do it away from home, what kind of moron would book a home fixture? I know they're playing Germany at home for some birthday thing, but that figures."
    Firstly, the climates of Chile can contrast sharply. Much of central Chile, including the capital, actually have a temperate Mediterranean climate. Southern Europe is likely to be warmer than Chile.

    Secondly, if England were to play Chile next "summer", it would actually be the winter in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning temperatures would likely be much lower than in England (say 7 degrees compared to 19 degrees in England).

    Thirdly, the Chile game was last night. The World Cup isn't until next summer. Why arrange an away game in Chile at this time in the season (when players have club commitments and we are so far away from the WC)? Even if Chile had a similar climate to what we'd expect in Brazil, it is far too early to be acclimatising players. Club managers would go MAD.

    As far as I'm aware the pre-tournament friendlies haven't been arranged. When they are arranged they may well be arranged in suitable climates. Take the 2002 World Cup, for example, when one friendly was played in South Korea and the other in Japan.
    Offline

    16
    After last night's performance I'm not sure it matters where they play. The team is utter crap. For some reason, the media refuse to admit this. The team isn't good enough. They have no consistently world class players. They're still relying on Lampard, Gerrard, and Cole (when they aren't injured. Rooney can be world class, but he's not consistent enough, which is why no other major European team seems to want to attempt to take him away from Manchester United.

    Jack Wilshere - Please, he's just an average player with a loud mouth and highly prone to injuries.
    Leighton Baines - Someone actually said this guy is competition for Ashley Cole. Well, not really, Cole in his prime would have smoked this kid.
    The Keeper - Who knows? But without a decent defence it doesn't really matter who plays in goal.
    James Milner - Average player who only plays because nobody else was really available.

    These are just examples. The team is largely average. To do well you need at least one world class player in every area of the pitch. In other words, one in defence, one in the middle, and one up at the front. We don't have that, so where England decides to play their friendlies really doesn't matter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Firstly, the climates of Chile can contrast sharply. Much of central Chile, including the capital, actually have a temperate Mediterranean climate. Southern Europe is likely to be warmer than Chile.

    Secondly, if England were to play Chile next "summer", it would actually be the winter in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning temperatures would likely be much lower than in England (say 7 degrees compared to 19 degrees in England).

    Thirdly, the Chile game was last night. The World Cup isn't until next summer. Why arrange an away game in Chile at this time in the season (when players have club commitments and we are so far away from the WC)? Even if Chile had a similar climate to what we'd expect in Brazil, it is far too early to be acclimatising players. Club managers would go MAD.

    As far as I'm aware the pre-tournament friendlies haven't been arranged. When they are arranged they may well be arranged in suitable climates. Take the 2002 World Cup, for example, when one friendly was played in South Korea and the other in Japan.
    Firstly, Santiago will be HOT right now.

    Secondly... what?

    Thirdly, club commitments? The first fixture in a two-fixture friendly week and you think a friendly will tamper with club commitments? You think we're far away from the World Cup? You think after qualifying, months before the WC starts is too early? They're not going to suddenly become South American-bodied players in one day and stick that way for the season. The experience is what helps, less of a shock. If they've done it before, there's less to worry about. C'mon.

    It sounds like England have just got this week and then Denmark before deciding the squad and going to Brazil. They only just arranged the coming fixtures, and it doesn't sound like any more is coming. The mark of a responsible FA.

    (Original post by Genocidal)
    After last night's performance I'm not sure it matters where they play. The team is utter crap. For some reason, the media refuse to admit this. The team isn't good enough. They have no consistently world class players. The team is largely average. To do well you need at least one world class player in every area of the pitch. In other words, one in defence, one in the middle, and one up at the front. We don't have that, so where England decides to play their friendlies really doesn't matter.
    Yours is just the other end of the extreme of the 'we're gonna win it' brigade, the one that's popped up since 2007. The "England are the worst team in the world" brigade. Saying "England won't win the whole thing so why should they even bother?", which looks arrogant and snobby. England have a good team and manager. Not a great team, not a horrible team. They're not Spain, Brazil or Germany. They're equally not Croatia, Armenia or Denmark. They've been that way for decades, but not being contenders doesn't mean they're complete rubbish.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yh and let's not forget it's the middle of the season and asking players to travel to chile right now would be asinine and draw criticism from everyone. Even some of the South Americans play their 'home' friendly outside South America.

    I'm all for fa bashing but there's nothing to complain about here.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    After last night's performance I'm not sure it matters where they play. The team is utter crap. For some reason, the media refuse to admit this. The team isn't good enough. They have no consistently world class players. They're still relying on Lampard, Gerrard, and Cole (when they aren't injured. Rooney can be world class, but he's not consistent enough, which is why no other major European team seems to want to attempt to take him away from Manchester United.

    Jack Wilshere - Please, he's just an average player with a loud mouth and highly prone to injuries.
    Leighton Baines - Someone actually said this guy is competition for Ashley Cole. Well, not really, Cole in his prime would have smoked this kid.
    The Keeper - Who knows? But without a decent defence it doesn't really matter who plays in goal.
    James Milner - Average player who only plays because nobody else was really available.

    These are just examples. The team is largely average. To do well you need at least one world class player in every area of the pitch. In other words, one in defence, one in the middle, and one up at the front. We don't have that, so where England decides to play their friendlies really doesn't matter.
    :facepalm2:

    You must've lived in a cave throughout the summer. Return to said cave tbh.

    It's funny you criticise some players yet you want a below par player in cole to be picked?

    You people sure do love a moan.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Firstly, Santiago will be HOT right now.
    I'm not denying it won't be. I'd hope it would be considering it's summer.

    Secondly... what?
    As I'm sure you know, Chile is in the southern hemisphere so their winter is during our summer (in other words, it peaks in July and August). A daily mean temperature in Santiago during May and June would only be around 9 degrees.

    Daily high temperatures in Chile, during their winter, are comparable to England's in summer.

    When you were proposing away friendlies in South America I was assuming you meant playing it next year, especially as you seemed unaware that the friendly took place last night.

    Thirdly, club commitments? The first fixture in a two-fixture friendly week and you think a friendly will tamper with club commitments?
    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.

    You often hear of teams playing poorly after an away European game. How do you think players will fare having experienced a journey five times as long as England to Ukraine?

    You really think club manager's would be happy with this, with so much of the PL season to go, not to mention that we're in a critical time in terms of qualification from the CL group stages?

    You think we're far away from the World Cup? You think after qualifying, months before the WC starts is too early? They're not going to adapt in one day. The experience is what helps, less of a shock. If they've done it before, there's less to worry about. C'mon.
    No one is asking them to adapt in one day. They will likely have several weeks including a couple of pre-tournament friendlies once the squad is picked. This isn't ideal, but that's the nature of having a tournament in country with such a different climate, and having such a packed domestic season.

    Take Japan and South Korea, for example. I don't think England were disadvantaged by the climate. They were knocked out in the quarter finals because they just fell short against a better Brazil side.

    Moreoever, a significant number of the players playing in friendlies early on in the season won't make the World Cup squad anyway. Far better know who is going to the World Cup first.

    It sounds like England have just got this week and then Denmark before deciding the squad and going to Brazil. They only just arranged the coming fixtures, and it doesn't sound like any more is coming. The mark of a responsible FA.
    There will be pre-tournament fixtures, as there always has been.

    At least the FA have chosen difficult opposition in Chile and Germany. This seems the most sensible thing to do, in my opinion. Pick difficult opposition and play them in Europe then, once the season finishes, play friendlies in Brazil.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by 419)
    :facepalm2:

    You must've lived in a cave throughout the summer. Return to said cave tbh.

    It's funny you criticise some players yet you want a below par player in cole to be picked?

    You people sure do love a moan.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Where did I say I want Cole to be picked? I merely stated Cole in his prime was in a whole other universe to Baines. Cole, Gerrard, and Lampard should be moved on. The fact we still have to rely on them shows what's coming through right now is average.

    Baines might be the best we have, and that's really really said when you compare it to the likes of Cole in their prime.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    Yours is just the other end of the extreme of the 'we're gonna win it' brigade, the one that's popped up since 2007. The "England are the worst team in the world" brigade. Saying "England won't win the whole thing so why should they even bother?", which looks arrogant and snobby. England have a good team and manager. Not a great team, not a horrible team. They're not Spain, Brazil or Germany. They're equally not Croatia, Armenia or Denmark. They've been that way for decades, but not being contenders doesn't mean they're complete rubbish.
    No, mine is the realist side of things.

    I'm not entertaining the hope of England winning or getting to the final, but at no point have I implied they're somehow the worst team in the world. We know that and I didn't feel it necessary to mention that, although I might have to start doing so in the future.

    England have an average team and an average manager. Roy Hodgson isn't particularly fantastic and the main reason he was hired was because he's a lapdog of the FA with no original ideas. He isn't prone to speaking out and will quietly get on with his job.

    Furthermore, there was this huge clamour for an English manager, as if it mattered in the slightest. If we were more open-minded we would be in a better position. Capello should never have gone, and that was the fault of the FA for undermining him.

    I never said there was no point in doing anything and just not bothering. My point was it really makes no difference as to the climate. An average team will always be average regardless of where they play.

    What they should be concentrating on is getting a strong team which plays together as much as possible. We change the team drastically for every game. No wonder they always have little synchronisation. They should be playing a solid team with a minimal number of changes. Consistency is the key, especially when they have so few chances to play together to begin with.

    You can't really throw a team of average players into a major tournament and expect them to play well together if they've rarely played together before it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Can you imagine the reaction from Premier League clubs if several members of their squad had to travel thousands of miles for some mickey mouse game? Especially if one of their players were to get injured just before the busy Christmas period? There would be uproar and rightly so. All you'd see is even more players pulling out for ''injuries''.

    It's bad enough we have the season disrupted for a THIRD time already for these pointless matches.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    you seemed unaware that the friendly took place last night.
    :facepalm2:

    *leaves*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    :facepalm2:

    *leaves*
    "Some bloke told me they're gonna play Chile, but then he said it was at Wembley, in fact all their next matches are at Wembley, so I knew he was lying"

    Future tense. Don't have a go at me if you don't know how to write properly.

    Instead of being so silly, and as you're the one who created this thread so presumably want some discussion, please address the points I made in my post, namely: -

    *That climates can differ substantially across South America, so playing in "South America" will not necessarily acclimatise players for Brazil.
    *That playing in South America will require a flight approximately five times that of England to Eastern Europe. No club will support this. Few, if any, players will want this. It puts further physical and psychological stress on players whose priority at the moment is their club.
    *That we are so far away from the World Cup, meaning a significant number of players won't even be going to the World Cup.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    "Some bloke told me they're gonna play Chile, but then he said it was at Wembley, in fact all their next matches are at Wembley, so I knew he was lying"

    Future tense. Don't have a go at me if you don't know how to write properly.
    omg... are you being serious? :lol:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    No, mine is the realist side of things.

    I'm not entertaining the hope of England winning or getting to the final, but at no point have I implied they're somehow the worst team in the world. We know that and I didn't feel it necessary to mention that, although I might have to start doing so in the future.

    England have an average team and an average manager. Roy Hodgson isn't particularly fantastic and the main reason he was hired was because he's a lapdog of the FA with no original ideas. He isn't prone to speaking out and will quietly get on with his job.

    Furthermore, there was this huge clamour for an English manager, as if it mattered in the slightest. If we were more open-minded we would be in a better position. Capello should never have gone, and that was the fault of the FA for undermining him.

    I never said there was no point in doing anything and just not bothering. My point was it really makes no difference as to the climate. An average team will always be average regardless of where they play.

    What they should be concentrating on is getting a strong team which plays together as much as possible. We change the team drastically for every game. No wonder they always have little synchronisation. They should be playing a solid team with a minimal number of changes. Consistency is the key, especially when they have so few chances to play together to begin with.

    You can't really throw a team of average players into a major tournament and expect them to play well together if they've rarely played together before it.
    If we had an average team we wouldn't have finished top of our group and qualified for Brazil.

    And the England manager should always be English.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sr90)
    Can you imagine the reaction from Premier League clubs if several members of their squad had to travel thousands of miles for some mickey mouse game? Especially if one of their players were to get injured just before the busy Christmas period? There would be uproar and rightly so. All you'd see is even more players pulling out for ''injuries''.

    It's bad enough we have the season disrupted for a THIRD time already for these pointless matches.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy;45189354[B)
    ]I trust the FA haven't put money above the England team and have prepared suitable friendlies to allow them to prepare for such foreign surroundings.[/B] Some bloke told me they're gonna play Chile, but then he said it was at Wembley, in fact all their next matches are at Wembley, so I knew he was lying. I says to him, I says "if England were playing Chile, they'd do it away from home, what kind of moron would book a home fixture? I know they're playing Germany at home for some birthday thing, but that figures."
    We are going to play against the USA in Boston, New York or Washington before heading south for a training camp in Florida (hot weather)

    We will then play our final warm-up game in Miami.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Dude Malabo is just downstairs. Santiago is on the other side if the water.

    Clubs complained when Spain went to play panama and Ecuador last season.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Training camp in Miami. That's gonna go well :laugh:


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by TRS-T)
    If we had an average team we wouldn't have finished top of our group and qualified for Brazil.

    And the England manager should always be English.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: November 17, 2013
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Football Discussions
Football League

The Football League

For all conversation about the English football league.

Fantasy Football

TSR's Fantasy Football League

Clean sheets, bonus points and captain picks, discuss it all here.

Predictions

TSR's Football Predictions Competition

Get your crystal balls out and win a prize!

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.