England up to 6th best in world

Originally posted by Hopster
Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay qualifies from a poorish South American group. Uruguay beat Costa Rica over two legs to get there. This is a Costa Rica side that were beaten to Automatic by The USA, a poor Mexican qualifying side and Honduras.

Do you really think Paraguay are a match for England and rank above them in World football. I see an argument for The ...[text shortened]... home and away and put the twonks legacy behind them.

Let's not be negative or negative sake.

Do you really think Paraguay are a match for England?

do i think a team that almost knocked spain out of the world cup are a match for england? lol are you taking the piss? they're clearly better than england at the moment.

fifa rankings are about the best teams now, what better way to judge that by taking only the past 4 years (a world cup cycle) into consideration?

like i said, europe has 4 opportunities to pick up points in that period - the euros, the wc and qualifying for both events. out of the 4 england were poor in 3 of them. how you can put them above a team like ghana who has proven themselves time and time again over the past four years is beyond me. a kick away from being wc semi finalists, third place and runners up in the past 2 african cup of nations and obviously topped their wc qualifying group. i know which country i'd rather be a fan of during the past four years, ghana clearly the better side at the moment.

African teams are rubbish.

england 0 - algeria 0

world cup 2010, this was the team who everyone was saying was africa’s weakest at the world cup. if that's rubbish, england shouldn't be ranked in the top 30.

the problem with english people when looking at the fifa rankings and thinking were england should be placed is that they think of how strong the pl is and how good their players look when playing alongside the worlds best in the pl and in europe. what they should be doing is looking at how they fail to perform time and time again against the best teams in the world. i'm not going to go into it further, i've spend to much time already explaining why english players are so poor compared to others in previous threads but they are. they look better playing with better players at their clubs but bring them together and they can't string 3 passes together, this isn't a coincidence it's been going on for years. they're just not technically good enough and their coaching at a very young age needs to be changed if england ever want to consistently compete for major honors.

Originally posted by Hopster
That is true, but doesn't answer the question.

Spain
Brazil
Germany
Argentina
Holland

Oi! That'll be the Netherlands, thank you very much!

The United Kingdom is the only country in which the separate provinces get their own football teams.

Richard

Originally posted by trev33
the problem with english people when looking at the fifa rankings and thinking were england should be placed is that they think of how strong the pl is and how good their players look when playing alongside the worlds best in the pl and in europe.

Very true; and then they conveniently forget that all the best teams in the Premier League rely heavily on foreign players, and that many of their own national team's players play in foreign leagues. This is true of almost all of the top leagues - the Bundesliga & German team being a notable exception - but in England, it appears to be a much bigger problem for the national team.

Richard

Originally posted by Hopster
Devils Advocate. Outside of the top 5 who are better?

Based on recent performance against, the Yanks are in with a shout 😛

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Oi! That'll be the Netherlands, thank you very much!

The United Kingdom is the only country in which the separate provinces get their own football teams.

Richard

'holland' has a much better ring to it though 😛

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Very true; and then they conveniently forget that all the best teams in the Premier League rely heavily on foreign players, and that many of their own national team's players play in foreign leagues. This is true of almost all of the top leagues - the Bundesliga & German team being a notable exception - but in England, it appears to be a much bigger problem for the national team.

Richard

well if you take the 4 top leagues in europe, the pl, la liga, serie a and the bundesliga you'll find that although most of the top players from each of those countries play in their own leagues they all rely on foreign players. they say the difference is that the young players don't get a chance in england as they do in other leagues, this is of course complete crap as if you're good enough you will get your chances. the problem for england clearly lays in the coaching area of young players. i can't remember the exact figures but it came out after the world cup and germany and spain had around 20,000 fifa pro licensed coaches with the majority of those teaching kids with england only having around 2,000. that says everything imo, culture has a huge influence on players as well and englands just isn't up to producing a world class side, whoever their national coach is.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Based on recent performance against, the Yanks are in with a shout 😛

Richard

Agreed, but the Green mishap, a very late goal, and a very easy qualifying group every time.

Originally posted by trev33
[b]Do you really think Paraguay are a match for England?

do i think a team that almost knocked spain out of the world cup are a match for england? lol are you taking the piss? they're clearly better than england at the moment.

fifa rankings are about the best teams now, what better way to judge that by taking only the past 4 years (a world cup cycl ...[text shortened]... age needs to be changed if england ever want to consistently compete for major honors.[/b]

While I agree about Paraguay. Who, by the way, everyone dismissed throughout the tournament. When they got the draw against Italy - they were considered rubbish. They should have beaten Spain, but everyone said Spain were better - I thought that was rubbish at the time. Now when people want to knock England, Paraguay are world beaters - funny that.

Algeria was just a dreadfully poor performance.

While your arguments have some merit, I truly think England are better than those teams. Remember we are dbating whether 6th is justified.

Fifa rankings are NOT about the best teams now. And that is the point. If we want to talk about the best teams now then we can't use FIFA ranking to establish that. According to correctly calculated FIFA rankings England are 6th. According to the performance in the WC, England are 13th. Is that correct? Where does that put Italy?

I care not for the Premier League. There was a lot of spin by The FA about the PL improving the England team and making England a WC force. It has done nothing by fuel to huge debt mountains at Liverpool and Man Utd, and allowed some very unfit and improper people to own clubs. Including someone who steals billions from a countries oil reserves.

The four headline players: Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Rooney were complete tosh, and were carried by supposedly lesser players.

I never bought into it. Those that did support the clubs responsible for the monster. They won't have a word said against their heroes. Because they sit at home with their Sky subscriptions and arrogantly watch their teams win in the pub, they think they know everything about football and supporters of lesser teams are dismissed. Many of them only started supporting these teams a few years ago.

The media, TV, radio and print, pander to it all. Most of it is owned by one man. Journalists seem to be idiots. They print a view that they think the big 4 and a few others want to read. They lack serious football knowledge compared to their counterparts in Spain, Italy and Argentina. They are seriously blinkered. Do you think a Sky/ITV/BBC commentator can comment on a league match in Argentina. Not a chance. No, they spend May and June telling theor readers that England were Worldbeaters. Then two months later they are howling derision. Bunch of idiots.

On top of that steaming pile of morons - press, gloryboy plastic supporters, Sky subscribers, fat cat players, stupid club chairmen, dodgy managers that bankrupt clubs before moving on with a few backhanders in the pocket - sit the incompetent old boys club of The FA.

There was a small window of opportunity to change that. There should have been protests outside of their HQ. No, rollon the charity shield and Man City paying silly money, and the circus starts again.

I will lay something at the feet of the manager, though. In some qualifying games both before and since the WC, he only played one of Gerrard or Lampard. When it mattered, when it really mattered, with the whole country telling him not to - he squeezed them both into the 11. The same mistake as the idiot before him.

Originally posted by Hopster
While I agree about Paraguay. Who, by the way, everyone dismissed throughout the tournament. When they got the draw against Italy - they were considered rubbish. They should have beaten Spain, but everyone said Spain were better - I thought that was rubbish at the time. Now when people want to knock England, Paraguay are world beaters - funny that.

Algeri ...[text shortened]... ling him not to - he squeezed them both into the 11. The same mistake as the idiot before him.

i'll respond fully to your post tomorrow when i have more time but just a quick note re

"While I agree about Paraguay. Who, by the way, everyone dismissed throughout the tournament. When they got the draw against Italy - they were considered rubbish. They should have beaten Spain, but everyone said Spain were better - I thought that was rubbish at the time. Now when people want to knock England, Paraguay are world beaters - funny that."

if you remember the world cup was considered a pretty poor standard, the only teams that got any credit in the early rounds were germany and argentina. spain didn't have a top performance until the semis and holland kicked there way to the final. paraguay got to the 1/4 by playing a solid defensive style of football, the way they got there in the first place, i didn't here anyone ever calling them 'rubbish', boring perhaps by the uncultured 'fans' but ask greece if they'd rather be exciting and lose or boring and win. you don't have to compare england with paraguay to show how poor england are you just have to watch their matches and look at the results, regardless or how 'boring' paraguay might be they know how to perform as a team, no one is calling them world beaters, just a solid well organised football team who know how to get a result against teams who have a greater quality of individual player.

Personally, I was impressed by Paraguay. But they were dismissed. Not least by the very ungracious manager of Italy.

Originally posted by Hopster
While I agree about Paraguay. Who, by the way, everyone dismissed throughout the tournament. When they got the draw against Italy - they were considered rubbish. They should have beaten Spain, but everyone said Spain were better - I thought that was rubbish at the time. Now when people want to knock England, Paraguay are world beaters - funny that.




...[text shortened]... No, rollon the charity shield and Man City paying silly money, and the circus starts again.

Algeria was just a dreadfully poor performance.

name an england world cup performance that was good? any of them justify a top 10 world placing?

While your arguments have some merit, I truly think England are better than those teams. Remember we are dbating whether 6th is justified.

how? results have proven over the past your years that they're better than england. englands individual players might look better than chile's, paraguay's, ghana's and uruguay's when you watch them play for their clubs but bring the players from each nation together and england have clearly been worse than those 4 teams in recent years. clearly.

Fifa rankings are NOT about the best teams now. And that is the point. If we want to talk about the best teams now then we can't use FIFA ranking to establish that. According to correctly calculated FIFA rankings England are 6th. According to the performance in the WC, England are 13th. Is that correct? Where does that put Italy?

the fifa ranking are supposed to judge who the best teams have been over a certain period of time, i'm not going to look up exactly how they do it because it's clearly a joke but it is supposed to demonstrate who the best teams have been recently, how england is placed 6th is beyond me. european teams are looked at far too favourable in the calculation of points. So yes, the fifa rankings are supposed to calculate who the best teams are now.

13th is closer to where they should be, yes. as for italy, topped their group getting to the world cup and euro 2008, going out in the 1/4 of the euros on pens to spain and out in the group stages of the wc have been better than england during the past 4 years so should be above them in the rankings. the world cup doesn't determine the rankings on their own and one bad world cup doesn't make you a bad team, failing at two major tournaments in a row however...


The four headline players: Gerrard, Lampard, Terry and Rooney were complete tosh, and were carried by supposedly lesser players.

which backs up what i've been saying about the better foreign players making the 'top' english players look better than they actually are. there are no playmakers in the english midfield and it shows then england play.


I will lay something at the feet of the manager, though. In some qualifying games both before and since the WC, he only played one of Gerrard or Lampard. When it mattered, when it really mattered, with the whole country telling him not to - he squeezed them both into the 11. The same mistake as the idiot before him.

yup. the only way both can play is in a 4-5-1 system. everything at the wc was a shambles at an english perspective but the problems run deeper than one bad tournament, they haven't had a decent one since 96 in england. clearly the problem lays within the coaching of players and the culture in which they're brought up. same goes for the irish, scottish and welsh teams and i sadly don't see it changing anytime soon tbh.

Originally posted by trev33
how? results have proven over the past your years that they're better than england. englands individual players might look better than chile's, paraguay's, ghana's and uruguay's when you watch them play for their clubs but bring the players from each nation together and england have clearly been worse than those 4 teams in recent years. clearly.

Feel free to look at their results over the last four years. I just have. They're "clearly better" only if you use a different definition of "clearly" or "better" than everyone else. They've got broadly similar records to England, to be honest. Probably not quite as good overall.

It's difficult to tell because there are few meaningful matches outside the WC between continents. So you're left with the odd friendly. Between the last world cups England played only 6 matches against American or African opposition. Won 4, drew 1 (against Brazil), lost one (against Brazil).

"Clearly better"? Not in this universe.

Originally posted by trev33
the problems run deeper than one bad tournament, they haven't had a decent one since 96 in england.

This is a strange, but common, way of simultaneously over- and under-rating England. 2002 - quarter final. 2004 - QF. 2006 - QF. They're pretty good results for a team you reckon shouldn't be anywhere near the world top 10.

1996? Semi-final. One round better. With home advantage (surely worth an extra round on average). It would have taken absolutely minute differences for England to have gone out in the QF here (penalties, dodgy offside decision), and reached the semis in 2004/06 (penalties).

Balanced opinions seems to be very hard to come across where England are concerned.


I'd agree there are issues, though. My own take on it is that English players tend to be very strong in some areas, weak in others (probably due to coaching at young ages). Club teams can offset the weaknesses by using overseas players who complement them, allowing the likes of Lampard and Gerrard to be very effective. England can't do that, giving them systematic weaknesses. Sometimes the corresponding strengths can mask them, but sometimes they can't - especially against the very best opposition.

Originally posted by trev33
well if you take the 4 top leagues in europe, the pl, la liga, serie a and the bundesliga you'll find that although most of the top players from each of those countries play in their own leagues they all rely on foreign players. they say the difference is that the young players don't get a chance in england as they do in other leagues, this is of course compl nd englands just isn't up to producing a world class side, whoever their national coach is.

Bayern Munich has ten German nationals in its squad as of last year - best team in Europe! best and most exciting team to watch in world cup - Germany! horsed England, horsed Argentina, got phased by Spain, but were a better team, should have won it. German football is light years ahead.

Originally posted by mtthw
Feel free to look at their results over the last four years. I just have. They're "clearly better" only if you use a different definition of "clearly" or "better" than everyone else. They've got broadly similar records to England, to be honest. Probably not quite as good overall.

It's difficult to tell because there are few meaningful matches outside ...[text shortened]... inst Brazil), lost one (against Brazil).

"Clearly better"? Not in this universe.

friendies don't count, why should they? they're rarely taken seriously (where the result is considered), they're used to try out new formations, new players and basically to gel a squad together for the matches that do matter.

i'm only looking at matches that matter and england have clearly performed worse than chile, paraguay, uruguay and especially ghana in the past 4 years.

outside of the wc how many matches of those teams have you watched in the past 4 years? exactly.