Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zonker84
Well one could argue that the Faroe Islands are way worse than Northern Ireland. Ignoring the FIFA rankings (I've not looked at them anyway), Northern Ireland clearly have the better players, just they struggle to win competitive games due to their low seeding when the groups are drawn.
Anyway, you Scottish people can have your gloating at the moment  Deep down I know you would love to be in England's position. I'm sure you won't admit it, but most Scottish people are deeply jealous of England's greater success at football, so love trying to stick the boot in when the dodgy results come along. Scotland's football leagues are shite, your international team is shite. Your best two football clubs would love nothing more than to join the English leagues, except no one wants them. A lot of Scottish people try to get over this jealousy by openly pretending that Scotland are better than England, and also wishing defeat on England in every game.
The reality is that Scotland haven't qualified for a major football tournament since 1998, and it could be a very long time before they qualify for one in the future. England have qualified for every major tournament, bar the World Cup in 1994, since I started paying attention to football (which was around the 1986 World Cup).
You say England would be wasting their time at the World Cup Crowie. If someone said to you, would you bet your life on England not winning it, in return for £1m if they didn't, would you do it?  |
Superb again Zonker, the bites were flying about in that post
Anyway, lets have a quick look at it. Englands football success - ahh yes, one major tournament win, on home ground, aided largely by a dodgy linesmans decision. Yep, that really puts you up there with the Brazils, Italys and Germanys of world football. Or does it just rank you alongside Greece, Denmark and the Czech Republic?
As for qualifying, well lets not forget that Scotland have qualified for only one less World Cup than the mighty all powerful England. Still with a population 1/10th that of Englands, I would term that a pretty decent success rate.
And the England wasting their time at the WC, well that was purely in for fishing purposes. However lets just hope you don't draw anyone too difficult...like Iran or S Arabia
Anyway, back to being serious, my England baiting is finished for now. I will say it again, England are better than Scotland. Man for man they have better players in I would say every position. Thats not up for debate IMO. Which makes what England achieve, or don't as the case seems to be, probably all the more disappointing for them.
As for them winning the World Cup, well they have the PLAYERS to win it but at the moment they don't seem to have the TEAM.
Scotlands recent success (ie not being humped by all and sundry) has been due to the sum of the parts being greater than the actual parts. Walter Smith has formed us into a pretty difficult to beat and well organised side where every player knows his job, knows his position and knows whats expected of him in that position. Thats the same formula that a whole host of lower ranked nations work by nowadays. It also might sound simple but having watched Vogts tactical shambles it looks like light and day under Walter Smith. At times someone will not do their job or performance levels will drop but considering the quality available thats only to be expected from time to time.
As I said, England have much better players than us and better players than a lot of the teams likely to be at the WC. However Sven seems to be unable to get them to function well together and he is getting into the bad habit of putting players into positions which are not their natural positions. We suffered from that under Vogts and paid the price. England have better players but I still say that playing players out of position at the very top level will see the performances they are capable of being diminished or certainly affected by being in an position they are not used to.
IMO he has a few things that he needs to sort out before the WC and the main one is midfield. Nearly every team in Europe, club and country, and most of the sides at the WC will play with a sitting player in midfield, protecting the defence and breaking up the play. A Makelele type player. Svens preferred England midfield doesn't have that sort of player and I think they will suffer, especially against the better nations, because of it.
Lampard and Gerrard don't seem to work in the current formation. Beckham as the play maker and sitter behind them didn't seem to work either as him spraying balls here there and everywhere seemed to take those two out of the game at times. He is also not a ball winner in any way.
If he goes back to a 4-4-2 he then need to make a decision which one of Lampard or Gerrard he plays as playing both in the centre leaves big gaps behind them. Neither is a natural sitter and asking either to do it will curb the best parts of their game, ie getting forward.
He also needs to sort out the left hand side. He seems to have tried everyone and anyone there with no success. He ended up playing one of the best attacking players in Europe there on Wednesday and its blatantly obvious that Rooney is miles better in the centre of the park.
Also playing this 4-5-1 formation left Owen isolated up front. Great goalscorer but most certainly not a target man and someone to lead the attack on his own.
Personally I think Sven would be better swithing to a 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, depends what you want to call it.
He has a number of good options in the centre of defence - Terry, Rio and Campbell or Carragher or King or even possibly Woodgate if he plays this season.
He has a good couple of full backs in Ashley Cole (probably about best LB in World IMO) and Neville. Both are more than capable of getting forward and supporting the midfield and giving the team natural width. Both do it well for club sides.
His central 3 could then be Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham. Would keep Beckham happy as its obvious he also wants to play in the centre. Would also mean that neither of the 3 really had to be the sitter in front of central defence as you would have 3 centre backs there instead of 2 and wouldn't be caught short.
Would then leave Rooney free to play in the middle, slightly behind the main striker, in the hole, free role or whatever but would also bring him much closer to Owen, or whoever starts up front and not leave the front man as isolated.
Too me England have the players to fit this system perfectly. They have teh defenders, have the central midfield, it would mean the left hand side problem wasn't as much of an issue, the sitter wasn't required and more players were playing in their preferred positions.
Seems simple enough to me, with that line up I think England would have a good chance at WC2006. With the current set up they will struggle as soon as they come up against a decent quality side.
Is it a bird? Is is a plane? No its a bandwagon... Jump On!
.GIF "Thumb(1)")
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 1
nice posts, but I've no intention of getting involved in a baiting competition (Ian Bell, Zonk 
) but I'll say this:
The basics were I take about as much interest in Scottish international football as i do St Kitts, no offence lads but i'm not Scottish so why would i ? Fact is we were shit and deserve all the abuse that is being hurled around cos that team on Wednesday played like they couldnt give a fcuk.
If you're telling me that you wouldn't want Scotland to have better players and some expectation of doing well, and that you're happy even though Scotland are not really getting anywhere, then I'm sorry but I don't believe you 
