First match, Gooners away. Let's hope we give them a run for their money.
Partick Thistle have unveilgd their new mascot (I know! Who could possibly be interested in that? Trust me, though check in case any small children in room)
http://tinyurl.com/ptjzfjy
Arsenal seem to have done well in their opening match. At least Spurs only lost 1-0, and away from home!!
Seen elsewhere What does a 16 year old keep in his pocket? Phone, chewing gum, Mesut Ozil.
its always nice when one of smaller sides beat the elite 5!
Wow Payet looks very tidy
Wow Payet looks very tidy
Yeah. I think he'll be a handful for many teams. Looks quick.
its always nice when one of smaller sides beat the elite 5!
That depends on your point of view.
Which is the fifth team in the "Big 5"?
its always nice when one of smaller sides beat the elite 5!
That depends on your point of view.
Which is the fifth team in the "Big 5"?
The top 5 are in this:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League#2013.E2.80.9314
Next year all 20 Premier League teams are likely to be in the top 30. With the 5 looking to sign galacticos the rest are able to take the next group, i.e. best of the rest in the world and will be more able to compete.
I'd love to see a season where a Southampton, West Ham, Stoke or Swansea break into the champions league places. Look at countries like Spain its a two horse race or Scotland where its not even a race.
its always nice when one of smaller sides beat the elite 5!
That depends on your point of view.
Which is the fifth team in the "Big 5"?
The top 5 are in this:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League#2013.E2.80.9314
Over 30 years since any team but Rangers or Celtic, won the Scottish title. How immensely boring!
Over 30 years since any team but Rangers or Celtic, won the Scottish title. How immensely boring!
I predict that for the next 30, it'll be just Celtic.
So your elite 5 are the teams that have more than €300 million in revenue? Because I would say that Liverpool are a bit behind the elite 4 in terms of player strength and resources.
I occasionally look at bits of the Scottish Premiership, and it's lacking in any real attention-grabbing content.That would describe a lot of the English Premier League, as well, BA. For real attention-grabbing content, you can't beat the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2. Unfortunately, at the same time, you can't beat any of the English divisions for real attention-numbing content.
Indeed - for decades it has been a two horse race. And with Rangers demoted and working their way back for the past few seasons it has been a one horse race ... yawn!its always nice when one of smaller sides beat the elite 5!
That depends on your point of view.
Which is the fifth team in the "Big 5"?
The top 5 are in this:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League#2013.E2.80.9314
Next year all 20 Premier League teams are likely to be in the top 30. With the 5 looking to sign galacticos the rest are able to take the next group, i.e. best of the rest in the world and will be more able to compete.
I'd love to see a season where a Southampton, West Ham, Stoke or Swansea break into the champions league places. Look at countries like Spain its a two horse race or Scotland where its not even a race.
Over 30 years since any team but Rangers or Celtic, won the Scottish title. How immensely boring!
Hmm, that's another point, but when was the last time Scotland produced a really great player? Like you say with those who played for Liverpool, there used to be a constant stream of them.That's right - once upon a time the best English teams tended to have a few Scots at their heart. That's long gone. I can't really think of the last time Scotland produced a genuinely world class player. Even Wales have done this with Giggs and more recently Bale. Can you really imagine Real Madrid or Barcelona paying tens of millions for any Scot over the past few decades.
Then again, perhaps you could say the same for England!
Who was the last English player in Bale's class? Gascoigne? Rooney and Gerrard aren't.
Who was the last English player in Bale's class? Gascoigne? Rooney and Gerrard aren't.Err Beckham. And I seem to remember that Real Madrid did pay top dollar for him, as indeed they did for Owen.
To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.Wouldn't disagree although he is currently holds the record for the highest transfer fee in world football, something none of those other achieved.
To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.Wouldn't disagree although he is currently holds the record for the highest transfer fee in world football, something none of those other achieved.
Again I don't disagree. But that doesn't mean that Bale isn't world class - I think he is - he perhaps isn't (yet) in that stratospheric company, and may well never make it. He may just end up as an average, hum-drum, world class player.To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.Wouldn't disagree although he is currently holds the record for the highest transfer fee in world football, something none of those other achieved.
True, but I think it says more about Madrid than the quality of the player. They seem to be the team that breaks the transfer record. They did it with Ronaldo, Zidane and I think Figo, but Bale isn't fit to lace their boots. There's no saying the potential isn't there, but I think that's more why they bought him.
Again I don't disagree. But that doesn't mean that Bale isn't world class - I think he is - he perhaps isn't (yet) in that stratospheric company, and may well never make it. He may just end up as an average, hum-drum, world class player.To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.Wouldn't disagree although he is currently holds the record for the highest transfer fee in world football, something none of those other achieved.
True, but I think it says more about Madrid than the quality of the player. They seem to be the team that breaks the transfer record. They did it with Ronaldo, Zidane and I think Figo, but Bale isn't fit to lace their boots. There's no saying the potential isn't there, but I think that's more why they bought him.
Trivia question.
There is currently just one Scot in the squads of the top seven teams from the 2014/15 premier league season. Anyone like to name him?
And by the way once you get it, you may well go ... who?!?
And a couple of other trivia points. He wasn't born in Scotland, has been on this clubs books for nearly 10 years and his number of appearances is ... umm ... zero.
To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.
To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.
I'd rate Bale over all of those apart from Gazza. There are mega stars Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo, Messi, Best, then another class of footballer that Beckham / Scholes belong, current generation Aguero, Suarez, Silva, Bale etc.
I think you add Bale to Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal or Man Utd and that team wins the League.
Gazza was somewhere in the middle.
Nope not in the Tottenham squad any more as he is now at Millwall. But right position.Trivia question.
There is currently just one Scot in the squads of the top seven teams from the 2014/15 premier league season. Anyone like to name him?
And by the way once you get it, you may well go ... who?!?
And a couple of other trivia points. He wasn't born in Scotland, has been on this clubs books for nearly 10 years and his number of appearances is ... umm ... zero.
Jordan Archer?
To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.
I'd rate Bale over all of those apart from Gazza. There are mega stars Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo, Messi, Best, then another class of footballer that Beckham / Scholes belong, current generation Aguero, Suarez, Silva, Bale etc.
I think you add Bale to Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal or Man Utd and that team wins the League.
Gazza was somewhere in the middle.
I'd um and ah over Beckham, but not Scholes. Not a chance.
I think one of the difficulties with Scholes and also Giggs, is that being 'one club' players it is a bit difficult to separate the quality of the individual from the success of the club. So to my mind it is a bit tricky to work out whether they were really exceptional players or very good players playing in a really exceptional team. I'm more inclined toward the former for Giggs (who I think would have been a star at Real Madrid or Barcelona etc had be been inclined to move) and the latter for Scholes.To be honest, I think Bale has a few years yet before he can be considered to be in the Beckham/Scholes/Gazza bracket. They're more a benchmark for him than the other way around.
I'd rate Bale over all of those apart from Gazza. There are mega stars Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo, Messi, Best, then another class of footballer that Beckham / Scholes belong, current generation Aguero, Suarez, Silva, Bale etc.
I think you add Bale to Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal or Man Utd and that team wins the League.
Gazza was somewhere in the middle.
I'd um and ah over Beckham, but not Scholes. Not a chance.
Yeah, I thought of Scholes last night when I posted. I was never sure how much around Beckham was hype, but what always impresses me is that he wasn't that great a player, but through practice and dedication he turned himself into one. That's not a bad example to set.
I saw Gazza say something recently about how he'd do something on the pitch but have to watch it back on TV to work out exactly what it was - it all came so naturally to him.
I do wonder about the thinking within Scottish football that led them to agree to Rangers getting all but thrown out,
which resulted in a product that nobody wants to watch. So the rights go for peanuts, the sport becomes ever more impoverished, the quality nosedives, nobody watches it, the rights go for even less...
I do wonder about the thinking within Scottish football that led them to agree to Rangers getting all but thrown out,
There's a rule about bankrupt football clubs that they had to apply.Quotewhich resulted in a product that nobody wants to watch. So the rights go for peanuts, the sport becomes ever more impoverished, the quality nosedives, nobody watches it, the rights go for even less...
That situation already applied. Only Rangers and Celtic had the necessary resources to provide a quality product, but then it turned out that even Rangers didn't have the resources.
I don't think we have any English players now who'd make it into a World X1 - or even a squad.
Probably true, although given the number of countries and players, I think there are plenty of countries (even the most highly ranked) who wouldn't provide a player in a world XI.I don't think we have any English players now who'd make it into a World X1 - or even a squad.
I'd agree, but I'd also recall that Greece won the European Championship from a similar situation... not a prediction, by any means, but always worth remembering.
O.
OK - no-one seems to be biting on this one.Nope not in the Tottenham squad any more as he is now at Millwall. But right position.Trivia question.
There is currently just one Scot in the squads of the top seven teams from the 2014/15 premier league season. Anyone like to name him?
And by the way once you get it, you may well go ... who?!?
And a couple of other trivia points. He wasn't born in Scotland, has been on this clubs books for nearly 10 years and his number of appearances is ... umm ... zero.
Jordan Archer?
Just to clarify I'm talking about the current squads (i.e. August 2015) for the top 7 teams from last season (Chelsea, Man C, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham and Southampton).
Well you're unlikely to find anything of interest on this then. Try going away.
I'm bored stiff with the Premier League already - same old, same old.
Well you're unlikely to find anything of interest on this then. Try going away.
I'm bored stiff with the Premier League already - same old, same old.
Well you're unlikely to find anything of interest on this then. Try going away.
I'd decided that without your advice, thank you.
Do clubs face any sanctions for appealing? If not then I think appeals are made on the basis that there isn't much to lose.
Arsenal seem to have done well in their opening match. At least Spurs only lost 1-0, and away from home!!
:) New season so a few comments on footballI like Alan Shearer's tweet on this Liverpool goal -
Tonight Liverpool v Bournemouth 1-0 watched the entire match on tv Liverpool had 3 outstanding players referee and his 2 linesman
Bournemouth were robbed, last week West Ham were skinned.These so called officials are not getting better,
~TW~
Modify message
It's the Kop end so NOT offside!!!;)
Not even sure that they are the 'tomorrow' team: more like next year, or next decade!!Arsenal seem to have done well in their opening match. At least Spurs only lost 1-0, and away from home!!
Tottenham are the current tomorrow team they will do it tomorrow,the problem is today keeps getting in the way.
~TW~
Not even sure that they are the 'tomorrow' team: more like next year, or next decade!!Arsenal seem to have done well in their opening match. At least Spurs only lost 1-0, and away from home!!
Tottenham are the current tomorrow team they will do it tomorrow,the problem is today keeps getting in the way.
~TW~
You may well be right,the scouting team come across as muppet's,their new stadium now being built is looking good.A scouting team is only as good as the manager and/or owner. It is he/they who tell the scouts what to look out for.
You may well be right,the scouting team come across as muppet's,their new stadium now being built is looking good.A scouting team is only as good as the manager and/or owner. It is he/they who tell the scouts what to look out for.
Well, that's a curious one, some games are having drinks breaks, it's so hot. Particularly in London I think, but also some other grounds. I remember this at one World Cup, but not in PL. Guinness?http://ind.pn/1F3DOaw
Money is going to rot the game from the head downwards.
And in his view, I am guessing, he would think he had been proved right.Money is going to rot the game from the head downwards.
That is what my Grandad used to say, he died in 1984.
Money is going to rot the game from the head downwards.
That is what my Grandad used to say, he died in 1984.
And in his view, I am guessing, he would think he had been proved right.Money is going to rot the game from the head downwards.
That is what my Grandad used to say, he died in 1984.
Shame about the crap home results.
Unimpressed with Liverpool sacking Rodgers. Replacement lined up already, methinks.Did anybody have him in the Manager Lotto?
I think Advocaat beat him to it, at least publicly.I missed him going. I see he jumped, which doesn't surprise me because he didn't really want the job at all. Also I think people might have lied to him about how much they were willing to spend on players.
Agreed. I hope for his sake Dyche doesn't go to Sunderland. Allardyce seems the obvious replacement.Alan Shearer just said he thinks Allardyce wouldn't go there without some changes in the club.
Well done Wales for qualifying for Euro 2016.Indeed - well done.
They are second in the group which puts them in the top 18 teams. They have 21 points and several of the teams in second position have 20 points or fewer. On their performance, it is reasonable to say they would have got into a 16 team tournament.Well done Wales for qualifying for Euro 2016.Indeed - well done.
What is slightly disappointing for the Welsh is that the competition has been expanded from its traditional 16 teams to 24 teams and therefore there will be some critics who will claim they only got in because of the enlarged format (and therefore easier qualifying tournament) but wouldn't have qualified under the old 16 teams model. Actually I think they would have qualified even if only 16 teams are in the finals.
They are second in the group which puts them in the top 18 teams. They have 21 points and several of the teams in second position have 20 points or fewer. On their performance, it is reasonable to say they would have got into a 16 team tournament.Nonetheless there will be people claiming they only made it because the qualifying tournament was easier. Probably the same argument will be made for a couple of other rather less common participants in major tournament finals, notably Iceland and Albania.
It is very relaxing now, I don't even have to be chippy as I can rely on other people, in this case Jeremyp, to do it for me. I am not too disappointed with the outcome, only that loss in Georgia was a real blip. It should be a very interesting tournament. Even with the patchy qualification you still have to favour Germany, but there are a number of possible winners and lots of great stories. In honour of Norman Wisdom I will probably support Albania.It is a shame that Scotland didn't make it, although I think it was a tough ask as it was as pretty tricky group.
is it too early to start making predictions for the drop?Quite likely those least able to afford expensive mercenaries and least able to keep talent which become poached by those who have the financial backing.
There's nothing new about WHU beating big teams then forgetting what a ball is against the others. It's the West Ham way. :-\
Good to see West Ham returning to form. :-)
Anyway, is it too early to start making predictions for the drop?
I'm going with Aston Villa, Bournemouth and Norwich.
The top is quite interesting. The winners will probably be Man City. Arsenal will be in there and I think Man Ure. However, the fourth place could be interesting. I would probably go for Liverpool.
Good to see West Ham returning to form. :-)
Anyway, is it too early to start making predictions for the drop?
I'm going with Aston Villa, Bournemouth and Norwich.
The top is quite interesting. The winners will probably be Man City. Arsenal will be in there and I think Man Ure. However, the fourth place could be interesting. I would probably go for Liverpool.
Went to the Swansea game where we lost to Arse, felt the scoreline flattered them a little, great going forward though a little delicate at the back.
Norwich?!? :oThere's nothing new about WHU beating big teams then forgetting what a ball is against the others. It's the West Ham way. :-\
We were bound to lose a game eventually. I didn't see the game but apparently Norwich played quite well. We've had such a good start to the season it seems disappointing but as long as we bounce back then it's a mere blip which even the top teams suffer now and then.
Of course! Doh!Is it something about yellow ;)
I have a theory about Chelsea.
I'm wondering if his treatment of the club doctor on the first day of the season caused him to lose the respect of his players.
Look away, ad-o.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34771645
Its on crazy season
No way, Jose
:o
Had to happen, but how, in just a few months?
Gutted that Arsenal beat Leicester thanks to some dodgy refereeing. >:(
Which also does Leicester a favour.
I actually went to the Arsenal-Leicester match. Leicester were really bad, quite negative in fact. I think, if they win the Premier League it will be an indictment of the quality of football on display in it.
Dead chuffed that the Irons played Spurs off the pitch last night. Gave Leicester some breathing space after their hiccup. I would so love Leicester to do it, would be the greatest sporting upset of my lifetime.
My thoughts pretty much, Wiggs. Won't ever see anything like it again in my lifetime, if ever.
Have to say I think fuck that about Man U every season though.
I haven't felt as enthusiastic about football as Leicester winning the P'ship, for a long time. My wife keeps burbling on about Man Utd, to which I retort, fuck that, is Mahrez holding up? It's partly a team breaking into the elite, but also their energy, enthusiasm, and of course, said Mahrez is something of a genius (although looking tired now). And it's probably a one-off.I think the problem is that things will tend back to normal next season. After all when did we last see an unexpected Premiership winner getting anywhere the following season?
It's only a game, aye right!! well done Leicester City, a minor, very small miracle but they do happen ;D ;D ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
It's only a game, aye right!! well done Leicester City, a minor, very small miracle but they do happen ;D ;D ;D ;DEven as a disappointed Spurs fan, I have to give Leicester the credit. Spurs can still challenge next season - provided that we remain in the Champions' League spots and therefore don't have players leaving over the summer. We are a young side. Also good to see the number of English - even British - players in the Spurs squad.
Gonnagle.
On the PM programme, it was reported that 25 people put money on Leicester at 5,000 to 1. One woman put 5p on it, but a man from Manchester put £50!If you think about it, that's pretty good odds. The bookies are saying that for every time a club that nearly got relegated wins the EPL, there are 5,000 times when they won't. I'd be quite confident that this will happen again some time in the next 5,000 years.
Would like West Ham to win tonight, simply to say farewell to the Boleyn fittingly
Interesting report from BBC reporter.Well he's blind then
"I am about 100 yards from the main entrance to the ground, what makes this evening unusual is the sheer number of supporters outside the ground.. The key thing is many want to be here to be part of the atmosphere.
"Right outside the ground was the Manchester United coach and it was stuck, it wasn't going anywhere. There were about 10 police vans in front of it and it was surrounded by a sea of fans. I didn't see any bottles being thrown then, I watched for a couple of minutes, but I have seen videos on social media of a couple of bottles being thrown.
"Most fans standing around were gesturing and singing, to say the bus was being attacked I think is something of an exaggeration."
A controlled explosion took place at Old Trafford today, for the first time this season. Plenty more bad jokes to come.
Ah. Well, the evacuation was well done and calm.I wonder whether there will be any fall out if Man U draw or win their final game which would be sufficient to get them into Europe at the expense of Southampton. Man U have the advantage of knowing that anything other than defeat will get them through. The final games are all supposed to be played at the same time to avoid one team having the advantage of know their rivals' results prior to playing their own game.
Quite extraordinary St Totteringham's DayI'm still laughing.
I'm still laughing.
A controlled explosion took place at Old Trafford today, for the first time this season. Plenty more bad jokes to come.And at St James's Park: an uncontrolled implosion.
Dear God,
Why am I a bluenose, not nice seeing Police on the park, Well done the Hi B's.
Gonnagle.
Dear Man U Fans, ( that will be the Wigginhall then :P )
Congratulations 8) 8) 8)
Gonnagle.
If they do appoint Mouriniho, I hope they end up in the bottom three next season, and lose many of their top players during the season.
I think the Euros belong to 15/16. Unless they need their own thread. :-\
Reports are that Ibrahimovic's deal to sign for Man U is all but done and dusted.Whilst Vardy's potential move to Arsenal hasn't worked out.
Whilst Vardy's potential move to Arsenal hasn't worked out.
Anyway don't under estimate Iceland, they are a highly organised team, it will be a great game ;)
All three Welsh goals were offside by miles.
Embarrassing. I might burn my England shirt.Where was Rashford? Why bring him if you're not going to play him properly - especially when you play a joke like Sterrling and someone who has had such limited pitch-time as Sturridge. Why not bring Defoe or even Crouch - at least the latter would have given us a height option!!
Woy had no idea. The manager takes the responsibility. What Wilshere was doing on the pitch I'll never know. Kane really is the worst freekick taker ever and Sterling is shite an' all. Too direct. What Sturridge is doing on the right I'll never know.
Embarrassing. I might burn my England shirt.
Woy had no idea. The manager takes the responsibility. What Wilshere was doing on the pitch I'll never know. Kane really is the worst freekick taker ever and Sterling is shite an' all. Too direct. What Sturridge is doing on the right I'll never know.
Where was Rashford? Why bring him if you're not going to play him properly - especially when you play a joke like Sterrling and someone who has had such limited pitch-time as Sturridge. Why not bring Defoe or even Crouch - at least the latter would have given us a height option!!
Embarrassing. I might burn my England shirt.
Woy had no idea. The manager takes the responsibility. What Wilshere was doing on the pitch I'll never know. Kane really is the worst freekick taker ever and Sterling is shite an' all. Too direct. What Sturridge is doing on the right I'll never know.
Embarrassing. I might burn my England shirt.
Woy had no idea. The manager takes the responsibility. What Wilshere was doing on the pitch I'll never know. Kane really is the worst freekick taker ever and Sterling is shite an' all. Too direct. What Sturridge is doing on the right I'll never know.
Hodgson made some odd choices but even so the basic inability of the players to move, pass, cross and shoot on target can't be down to him surely. There is something about the structure of English football which produces teams like this because it happens all to often. Too much (easy) money? Too many foreign players perhaps?
Ahhh England fans, truly embarrassing.
Why aren't Holland at these Championships?
Although I agree that Hodgson didn't seem to know his best team I have to say nor did I or anyone else. When professionals can't pass to each other, get a cross or corner beyond the first defender or shot on target it can't all be down to the manager.
I think this tells us that the winning strategy is to field your best team.
Jack Wheelchair
I don't have any choice. I suggest you switch your allegiance to Scotland. They are rarely in a position to be really bad in a major tournament.
If England make it to the next World Cup I know I will probably support them (in my heart I know that) but I really do wish sometimes that I had the will power just to give up on them. It's just too heartbreaking.
That's very good, I'm going to steal it.
But you are right, he should not have been at the tournament.
I don't have any choice. I suggest you switch your allegiance to Scotland. They are rarely in a position to be really bad in a major tournament.
Captain Wayne Rooney insisted tactics did not play a part in England's loss.
He's made significant changes of personnel before every game in this tournament. Do you think that helps in a team game?
I agree that the players were hopeless, but they were essentially Premier League players against (in some cases literally) Championship opposition. These are players who performed exceptionally well in the EPL (except Sterling and Wilshire) and who won the qualifying tournament with a 100% record (yes, with Hodgson). You don't just become rubbish over night. There has to be a reason why they were collectively so woeful and, from where I stand, the fact that Hodgson kept changing the team stands out.
Because they are even more shit than England.
How does changing the team mean a player can't get a cross or corner passed the first defender or pass 5 yards to someone in his own team?
I have paid sport and managed football teams at local level quite successfully. Of course the players are human but they are also highly paid professionals - would you accept any other professional not being able to do the basics because they got the jitters? I would ask again, how does changing the team lead to not being able to beat the first defender from a corner - repeatedly?
Then they shouldn't celebrate England losing then. English hating Welsh tossers.
Yeah, but you still lost to a shit England side. LOL!
Russia my other team? Since when, boyo?
OIC I was confusing your bitterness over the Wales v Russia game, where Wales won 3-0 (just in case you had forgotten bruv) as support rather than what it was, envy.
Eh?Vokes, Robson -Kanu, and Williams all born in England
Vokes, Robson -Kanu, and Williams all born in England
So they're not even proper Taffs, boyo?
Vokes, Robson -Kanu, and Williams all born in EnglandAlso with pretty tenuous eligibility criteria - in each case a single Welsh grandparent. One of them played for England at under 17 and 19 level.
Also with pretty tenuous eligibility criteria - in each case a single Welsh grandparent. One of them played for England at under 17 and 19 level.
Wales have done really well to get into the semifinals. They haven't broken any of the eligibility rules, so let's not be mean spirited about this.I'm not being mean spirited at all - don't forget this has been standard practice for years - remember the great Irish side of the early 90s.
Bye bye, Wales! He he!A bit of an anticlimax really last night. I think the loss of Ramsey was massive - to my mind he has been their best player throughout the tournament.
Payet.I meant Wales' best player of the tournament, not the best player of the tournament in any team.
I meant Wales' best player of the tournament, not the best player of the tournament in any team.
Its not only what you meant - its what you said!I know ???
Bye bye, Wales! He he!
We will have fond memories of this tournament, Wales did great. We shouldn't snigger at England. Muhahahahaha. :)
Onto next season a RaE fantasy football league. I know we'd lose to Davey and Ado who know everything about everything but its not the winning but the taking part that counts!
But you still lost to a crap England side. Ha ha! What pissed me off was the Welsh team celebrating when England got knocked out. Sod all that supporting home nations shite. It's all a load of bollocks! And at the end of the day you won nothing: last 16 or semi-final, it's all the same. Both teams went home losers.Well I think that was bound to happen.
What England needs is some tactical savy. That starts at the manager. We need to find our own style. We need to stop picking names (even when they're not in form) and trying find a system around them but have a system and pick on form players accordingly. The FA also needs a complete overhauling.Of course we need someone who is tactically savy, but we've been failing over countless years with manager after manager with excellent prior track records (and Steve McClaran), but I don't think that's enough.
I don't entirely buy the argument. Most of our top players play for clubs which play regular European football and are managed by foreign coaches. Why, as a player, would you want to play in a league with two good sides and 16 or 18 shite sides when you can play in the Premier League where any side, on their day, can beat any other side?Because there are different ways of playing. So a player may seem OK playing in the PL way of playing, but way be woefully exposed if playing a different way. Likewise someone might seem so/so in the PL but would really shine in Spain, where the type of football played is different.
I don't entirely buy the argument. Most of our top players play for clubs which play regular European football and are managed by foreign coaches. Why, as a player, would you want to play in a league with two good sides and 16 or 18 shite sides when you can play in the Premier League where any side, on their day, can beat any other side?So the Euro 2016 final will be between two teams - one with players currently playing in 6 countries, the other with players currently playing in 7 countries. And in each case there is experience of even more countries when you consider previous clubs.
So the Euro 2016 final will be between two teams - one with players currently playing in 6 countries, the other with players currently playing in 7 countries. And in each case there is experience of even more countries when you consider previous clubs.
Both countries are stuffed full of experience of the game in England, Italy, Spain and Germany (the big four leagues) plus France too.
And you'll see this if you look back at the finalists in pretty well every tournament for years. A pure coincidence? I think not.
So are the players in the French and Portugese squads inherently much better than those in ours (noting that quite a few are going head to head with the players in the English squad in the PL) - hmm perhaps, but not obviously. Are they far far more experienced and savvy of playing successfully for and against the differing playing styles you get in different countries - undoubtedly. Our players only know how to play 'English' their players know how to play not just 'English' but also 'Italian', 'Spanish', 'German' and 'French'.
It is the elephant in the room, but the FA and many others refuse to admit it. The issue isn't non English players in the PL (as there are tons of non French players in the French league, non Italian players in Italy etc) - nope the issue is too few (in reality as near to none as makes no difference) English players playing outside England or with any actual experience outside England.
Your analysis is flawed, Spain won the world cup and two European Championships with handful of players based overseas, when they played Italy and Germany in the finals their opposition only had a handful of overseas players.Not true - although Spain have historically been dominated by players who play and have played exclusively in Spain, their improvement to best in the world (having, like England suffered decades of under-achievement) coincided with a much more international approach, with a significant number of players having experience outside of Spain.
Not true - although Spain have historically been dominated by players who play and have played exclusively in Spain, their improvement to best in the world (having, like England suffered decades of under-achievement) coincided with a much more international approach, with a significant number of players having experience outside of Spain.And if you look back you can see the problem:
So to look at their winning squad in 2012, they had players playing at that time in top teams in England, Italy and Germany, as well as Spain. And more still with experience outside of Spain, for example:
Albiol, Pique, Martinez, Torres, Fabregas, deGea, Mata, Xavi Alonso, Costa, Carzola, Silva, Azpilicueta and Reina
That's over half their squad with experience outside Spain.
Compare that with the current England squad, with the only non-English experience being their third choice goalkeeper's couple of seasons at Celtic.
Clearly when you have a strong league you will have plenty of players playing in that league, but in recent times all the most successful teams internationally have brought significant experience of playing in top leagues outside of their home country to their international squads.
And if you look back you can see the problem:Just some more context, both France and Portugal heading into the final on Sunday have 18 of their 23 player squads with experience outside their home leagues - and that includes all the major leagues.
So these are the number of players in the squad with any experience outside of England. Then I've indicated whether that experience is in another top league (Spain, Italy, Germany, France). Then I've indicated the number of players with non-English experience who actually played:
2016 Euros - 1, 0, 0 (Forster) – last 16
2014 World Cup - 1, 0, 0 (Forster) – out at group stage
2012 Euros - 0, 0, 0 – quarter final
2010 World Cup - 0, 0, 0 – last 16
2006 World Cup - 2, 2, 2 (Beckham, Hargreaves) – quarter final
2004 Euros - 2, 2, 2 (Beckham, Hargreaves) – quarter final
2002 World Cup - 1, 1, 1 (Hargreaves) – quarter final
2000 Euros - 1, 1, 1 (McManaman) – group stage
1998 World Cup - 0, 0, 0 – last 16
1996 Euros - 3, 3, 3 (Ince, Gascoine, Platt) – semi final
1992 Euros – 4, 3, 4 (Woods, Steven, Platt, Lineker)- last 8 (were only 8 teams)
1990 World Cup – 7, 3, 6 (Stevens, Butcher, Waddle, Beardsley, Lineker, Woods, Steven) – semi final
Make of that what you will
Just some more context, both France and Portugal heading into the final on Sunday have 18 of their 23 player squads with experience outside their home leagues - and that includes all the major leagues.Anyone else out there want to play :(
Germany winning the 2014 world cup had 9 players with experience outside of Germany, Spain in 2012 had 13, in 2010 and 2008 they had 8 with experience outside of Spain.
I would say the biggest under-achievers currently are Belgium which undermines your hypothesis.Belgium only has a population of 11 million - what on earth does 'par' look like in your view for them.
You are failing to address an issue, England are not underachievers, you should expect them to be in the top 16 in the world and in 4 of the last 5 world cups that is where they have finished.I think you are using a circular argument - in other words to base where you think they should finish on the basis of where they do finish.
I think you are using a circular argument - in other words to base where you think they should finish on the basis of where they do finish.
So who are the 15 teams who should be above them in the world.
If you look at this objectively on the basis of:
1. Population - i.e. the pool of available talent.
2. Where the country has a heritage of playing football as their main sport (so this would downgrade the USA and China as examples where football is a minority sport)
3. Whether the country has sufficient fundamental infrastructure (including its leagues) to support the development of talent.
On that basis England sits in a European group with Germany, France, Italy and Spain and outside of Europe only really Brazil and Argentina join them, possibly Mexico too (another underachiever).
So I'd say 'par' is last 8 in world cup, top 5 in europe - and that means that for every failure to qualify or knock in group stage or last 16 we should be seeing a balancing final appearance or even tournament victory. On that basis we are perennial underachievers.
And just compare how poor England's record is with any of their European rivals of equivalent population size and footballing infrastructure, in other words Germany, France, Italy and Spain. We are clearly the worst performing of that group, and there is no fundamental reason why - we are, therefore, underachieving.
We disagree, you are not factoring in a dilution of talent due to rugby and cricketEvery country has other sports which compete for prominence and talent with football. So why are you just singling out England and rugby and cricket. So for example cycling is absolutely huge in France and of course they also play rugby to a similar extent as England. Football in Germany competes with other team sports such as basketball and handball. So they also have a 'dilution of talent' too.
, and also the fact that England is smaller than France, Italy and much smaller than Germany.Sure England (54 million) is markedly smaller than Germany (80 million) but it is hardly significantly smaller than France (64 million) or Italy (59 million) and is certainly bigger than Spain (46 million). So that hardly accounts for the fact the England's record is woeful compared to Italy, France and Spain over the past 30 years or so.
Just imagine if there was British team, add Gareth Bale to England, in the past Ryan Giiggs, or in the 60's Best, 70s Scottish players then you should expect England to be Top 8.Possibly, but we will never know.
Every country has other sports which compete for prominence and talent with football. So why are you just singling out England and rugby and cricket. So for example cycling is absolutely huge in France and of course they also play rugby to a similar extent as England. Football in Germany competes with other team sports such as basketball and handball. So they also have a 'dilution of talent' too.
Sure England (54 million) is markedly smaller than Germany (80 million) but it is hardly significantly smaller than France (64 million) or Italy (59 million) and is certainly bigger than Spain (46 million). So that hardly accounts for the fact the England's record is woeful compared to Italy, France and Spain over the past 30 years or so.
Possibly, but we will never know.
You are failing to address an issue, England are not underachievers, you should expect them to be in the top 16 in the world and in 4 of the last 5 world cups that is where they have finished.
They lost to Iceland for crying out loud. 8% of Icelanders had tickets for the Euro 2016 championships. You could accommodate their entire population in the top five English football stadiums.I know - Jakswan really is talking rubbish in claiming that somehow England aren't perennial underachievers.
Yep - and they do it in such an embarassing way too!Well every team has its embarrassing moments, even the top ones - remember the world champions France crashing out of the 2002 world cup having lost to Senegal in their opening match and finishing bottom of the group.
England are underachieving. That's undeniable. I'm just unconvinced that it's due to too few of our top players playing abroad. As I said, most play European style football in the Champions and Europa Leagues, have European managers etc. I think the FA itself is the problem, proven by dinosaurs such as Allardyce and Bruce reportedly being considered for the England manager job.Well we've tried virtually everything else in hope of getting better - English managers, foreign managers, academy systems, etc etc etc. None have worked.
That's right - in the last 10 major tournaments England have won only 2 matches at the knock stages, they've never even got to a semi final, let alone a final. And those 2 knockout stage victories were over those
They lost to Iceland for crying out loud. 8% of Icelanders had tickets for the Euro 2016 championships. You could accommodate their entire population in the top five English football stadiums.
I know - Jakswan really is talking rubbish in claiming that somehow England aren't perennial underachievers.
Now lets put aside the Iceland debacle - sure any team can have a terrible off day, but England have had an off-20 years (or more).
So without doubt England's benchmarking should be other European countries with broadly equivalent eligible populations, where football is undoubtedly the number one support and where there is sufficient infrastructure (including high quality club structures) not to restrict the development of a high quality national side.
Iceland drew with Portugal, the winners, they beat Holland twice to get to the finals, for crying out loud.So other countries are under achievers too. Great.
On that we disagree, Rugby, Athletics, Cricket all dilute the pool of talent available.Every country has other sports that 'dilute the talent pool' - where that really does make a difference is in countries where football is not a traditionally predominant sport - for example the USA. It doesn't make a difference when you compare England (which football as undoubtedly the predominant sport, but other minor sports as you suggest also played) and Italy, France, Germany and Spain, in every case also having football as undoubtedly the predominant sport, but other including minor sports. Sure these minor sports might be different to those in the UK, but they are no more, nor less of a diluting factor.
Why are you are not living up to expectations is that your expectations are wrong. Had Wales lost to Belgium do you think anyone would have been going potty over the state of Welsh football.No because Wales as a country of a couple of million people was already massively over-achieving - their bench-mark will be other countries of similar population. England has a population of 54 million (probably more eligible players) it is benchmarked against similar sized countries where football is the predominate sport and have similar infrastructures for the game - namely Germany, France, Italy and Spain - and in that company England are perennial underachievers - not just in this tournament but for the post few decades.
What about Russia, Wales made them look like a schoolboy side.Russia have a pretty poor side at the moment and although they have a huge population football has never really predominated in the way it does in England and some other countries - Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile, which football doesn't have.
On that we disagree, Rugby, Athletics, Cricket all dilute the pool of talent available.You really are talking non-sense.
Every country has other sports that 'dilute the talent pool' .....
Russia have a pretty poor side at the moment and although they have a huge population football has never really predominated in the way it does in England and some other countries - Russia have historically focussed resource and infrastructure on sports with Olympic profile, which football doesn't have.
Has the talent pool been diluted or has it been restricted. There was a time when England had a crop of two-, even three-speciality internationals - often football and cricket.I think that's right - the days where a player would play international football and then international cricket are long gone.
Would it be fairer to suggest that football (and other sports) have become so exclusive that there is no longer the opportunity for multi-talented sportsfolk to practise that multi-talentedness?
Jakswan is bizarrely suggesting that the pool of available players in England is diluted (or restricted) in England due to the availability of other competing sports, when it isn't in France or Germany or Spain or Italy. As if no-one in those countries ever plays any sport except for football. That is, of course, non-sense. While the competing popular sports may be different to England - so for example very few people in France play cricket, but very few people in England play Ice Hockey, all these countries have other sports, relatively minor in their popularity and participation that effect the available pool of talent for the clearly predominant sport in all those countries, which is football.
My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.But you have no evidence for that, beyond looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope and concluding that because Germany, France, Spain don't play rugby and cricket that they therefore only play football (despite the obvious point that rugby is played in France to levels similar to England).
My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.So number of registered players (over 18)
There is nothing bizarre about it, we both agree the the US doesn't produce talent relative to their population because other sports are played, you argue that Russia doesn't live up to expectations because they compete more in the Olympics. My argument is that England plays other sports not the same degree as the USA but more than Germany, France, Spain.Germany and Spain both have top international footballers, but also have top international hockey (field) players. Germany also have top athletes, tennis players, swimmers, motor sports drivers, handball and basketball players, cyclists, skiers and other winter sports players, boxers.
Germany and Spain both have top international footballers, but also have top international hockey (field) players. Germany also have top athletes, tennis players, swimmers, motor sports drivers, handball and basketball players, cyclists, skiers and other winter sports players, boxers.Indeed - Jakswan really is talking non-sense.
But you have no evidence for that, beyond looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope and concluding that because Germany, France, Spain don't play rugby and cricket that they therefore only play football (despite the obvious point that rugby is played in France to levels similar to England).
Sure the Germans (as an example don't play much cricket and rugby), but they play far more of the following sports than people in England do:
Basketball
Handball
Ice Hockey
So as examples Germany is ranked in the top 10 in the world and average attendance at matches is up there with many english rugby matches.
Handball is huge in Germany as they basically invented the sport. Handball is hardly even heard of in England.
And on France - I've already provided the evidence that there are more registered football players in England than there are in France, so frankly you argument just crumbles to dust when we glance at the evidence.
... we will agree to disagree.You have to love the 'we will agree to disagree' - as if we merely have two opposing be equally valid arguments, both equally supported by evidence, and equally compelling to others.
..... my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.
You have to love the 'we will agree to disagree' - as if we merely have two opposing be equally valid arguments, both equally supported by evidence, and equally compelling to others.
But we don't - my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.
Your assertions to the contrary are supported by exactly zero evidence and refuted by lots of evidence. And correct me if I'm wrong, no-one else seems convinced by your assertions.
So, no, lets not agree to disagree, lets agree that I have won the argument.
But you are correct that debating with someone who makes wild assertions that aren't backed up by any evidence if boring. And in that respect you are indeed rather like Sassy.
And me!Why thank you Maeght.
But we don't - my line, both on England being perennial underachievers and there being no evidence that football is more 'diluted' by other sports in England than other comparable countries, is supported by loads of evidence (see above) and also seems to be supported by others here, e.g. Hope, Jeremy P and AdO.PD, I've seen evidence - very compelling evidence - for jakswan's POV. However, once you realsie that it has been produced by people who seem to think that football is the only sport that ought to be allowed to be played, that compelling-ness seems to fade.
Dear me I gave the last Olympics medal table, you said Russia underachieved because it invested its talent in the Olympics.Frankly your approach of providing the medal table for a single tournament to refute my claim that:
PD, I've seen evidence - very compelling evidence - for jakswan's POV. However, once you realsie that it has been produced by people who seem to think that football is the only sport that ought to be allowed to be played, that compelling-ness seems to fade.I think Jaswan's line, which is of course non-sense, is that the presence of rugby and cricket in England dilutes the talent pool for football, but in other countries there are no other sports competing with football for the talent pool.
After all, one could equally argue that England's poor performances in Rugby Football World Cups and 4-, 5- and 6 Nations' tournaments is because the talent pool is diluted by the existence of Association Football.
I think Jaswan's line, which is of course non-sense, is that the presence of rugby and cricket in England dilutes the talent pool for football, but in other countries there are no other sports competing with football for the talent pool.
That there are more registered basketball players in Spain than there are registered rugby players in England and France combined rather destroys that view.
I'm getting bored with your rhetoric, you become more like Sass every day, we will agree to disagree.
Source of data?Spanish Basketball Federation and International Rugby Board.
After all, one could equally argue that England's poor performances in Rugby Football World Cups and 4-, 5- and 6 Nations' tournaments is because the talent pool is diluted by the existence of Association Football.That's clearly a more significant factor.
Good news for West Ham. Payet is staying.Indeed - he was excellent in the Euros, albeit a bit quiet in the final. Really surprised he was substituted so early in the match.
Spanish Basketball Federation and International Rugby Board.
Steve Bruce being suggested as England manager!!!!Minor nitpick: he's three times achieved automatic promotion to the EPL which beats play-off final winner.
I mean what planet are these people on. Sure he had a great club career, but he never played international football and his managerial record is limited to say the least - highest accolade being winning the championship play off final. In other words he has won nothing.
What good manager would want to manage England, they have one of the top 16 squads in the world and when you finish in the top 16 in the world you fail.When did England last finish in the top 16 in the World?
When did England last finish in the top 16 in the World?
Minor nitpick: he's three times achieved automatic promotion to the EPL which beats play-off final winner.True - but he has still won nothing except for this. Finishing second and getting promotion isn't winning something.
Anyway, if you are looking for an English manager to manage England, options are limited at the moment. If they have to have won something at top flight club level as a manager and played for England, I can't think of anybody.Indeed, but why do we need to have an English manager - that mould was broken some while ago.
Four of the last five world cups.And in all that time their sole knock-out stage victories have been against those footballing giants of Ecuador and Denmark.
When did England last finish in the top 16 in the World?2010
Four of the last five world cups.That's not a date. I asked when.
That's not a date. I asked when.See above.
In the last World Cup we didn't even get out of our group.
In the last Europeran Championship we got into the last 16 just but failed to win against a team of championship players and amateurs. But, of course, that was just Europe, not the World.
True - but he has still won nothing except for this. Finishing second and getting promotion isn't winning something.But because Capello's reign is considered to be a failure (even though Jakswan considers the 2010 World Cup to be a success), all foreign managers are apparently wrong for England.
Indeed, but why do we need to have an English manager - that mould was broken some while ago.
And you are right there are no English managers with any credible track record, so we should go for a non English manager with an appropriate record. I think the days of thinking that to be a mistake are long gone.We are in agreement.
Yep. A completely uninspired appointment by the FA but sadly it doesn't surprise me.A sad day for English football.Oh my Dog, I agree with Ad O.
See above.So it's 10years since England "overachieved" in a tournament according to Jakswan's criteria.
And the last time England won a match in the knock-out stages of a tournament was 25th June 2006, over 10 years ago, when they beat the mighty Ecuador 1-0 in Germany.
But because Capello's reign is considered to be a failure (even though Jakswan considers the 2010 World Cup to be a success), all foreign managers are apparently wrong for England.But in retrospect of the past 4 managers (two English and 2 non-English) the best record is Sven, the worst McLaran and I'd put Capello's record no worse than Hodgson.
We are in agreement.
So it's 10years since England "overachieved" in a tournament according to Jakswan's criteria.I don't think last 8 is par for EC - if that's the case who are the 7 teams supposedly better than us, looked at on objective grounds (eligible population, commitment to football as number 1 sport, and infrastructure including strength of club league).
2016 EC - last 16 (but it would be reasonable to assume we should have made last 8, especially with the draw): FAILURE
2014 WC - Bottom in group making us between 24 and 32: FAILURE
2012 EC - Last 8 - par for the EC
2010 WC - Last 16, par according to Jakswan but failed to beat USA (where football is a considered girls' game) and only came second in group: FAILURE
2008 EC - Failed to qualify: EPIC FAILURE
2006 WC - Last 8, Yay!: SUCCESS although we lost to Portugal in the last 8, a country with one fifth of the population of England
But because Capello's reign is considered to be a failure (even though Jakswan considers the 2010 World Cup to be a success), all foreign managers are apparently wrong for England.
But in retrospect of the past 4 managers (two English and 2 non-English) the best record is Sven, the worst McLaran and I'd put Capello's record no worse than Hodgson.Capello's record is better than Hodgson's. He got England into the last eight of a World Cup. Hodgson didn't get us out of the group stage.
I don't think last 8 is par for EC - if that's the case who are the 7 teams supposedly better than us,Sorry, I was loosely applying the Jakswan success criteria.
Sam doesn't surprise me in a results based business he gets results. When England qualify for the WC again and finish in the top 16 it will be another "disaster" and another new fix will be applied.
Sam doesn't surprise me in a results based business he gets results.On what evidence does he get results.