NationStates Jolt Archive


Sven Goran Eriksson is an idiot

Genaia3
03-07-2006, 01:35
Right, after seeing three years of performances of banal mediocrity from an England team that oozes with talent I have reached the end of my tether. I know that it matters very little now he has left but for me Sven has been one of the worst England managers in modern history.

Why did he select Theo Walcott? Either he was good enough for England or he was not, why select him if you are not willing to play him. Similarly why the fuck did he only select one fully fit premiership striker to take to Germany?

Why, after 4 years of persisting with the 4-4-2 formation did he suddenly decide to revert to some absurd 4-5-1 system when it really mattered?

Why has he wasted international friendlies by making 10 substitutions per match and thus creating a completely superficial match environment?

Why is he so unwilling to drop any of his "stars" even when it is clear they are not performing. The man is so utterly gutless it is clear that the England job is about ten times bigger than he is.

I could go on, but its pointless. During the reign of king Sven we have had a side richer in talent than possibly any other England side in history, yet we have done nothing with it. The useless Swede has wrecked our best chances of silverware since 66.
Mooseica
03-07-2006, 01:40
*Shrug* Bovvered.

Ah the joys of really not being too fussed by football. You should try it some time - it was great on Saturday being the only happy person amidst all the grumpy buggers.

In the end, however bad we screw up there's still next time, and always will be, so chillax yo.
[NS]Liasia
03-07-2006, 01:43
Can't wait till the press starts on roo-ney:rolleyes:
Lay off Erikson, he's done at least as well as any other manager in the last 39 years.
Kamsaki
03-07-2006, 01:45
Eriksson's formation was fundamentally correct; England's squad is primarily composed of midfielders, and it makes little sense to waste their talent in that respect.

Where he messed up was firstly, as you said, in an excess of substitutions, and secondly in a poor management of his set pieces to take advantage of his formation.

Had he spent more time on those set pieces, he'd be relying more on specific players and thus keeping them on the pitch for longer, which'd kill both of those problems easily. Instead, however, he chose to focus on players' individual skills. We definitely saw the effect of this in the likes of Joe Cole and Owen Hargreaves, but individual flashiness doesn't score goals, no matter how much the press laps it up, and I think Eriksson should have realised that. Perhaps he relished the headlines too much?
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 01:55
I think it was just that the English squad didn't seem to work together nearly as well as some of the others did.

One can't doubt that there was a lot of individual talent in that squad. Man for man it really could've won it. But if all these great players aren't forming a team, what are you gonna do?

It's just like Brazil.
Mooseica
03-07-2006, 01:58
I think it was just that the English squad didn't seem to work together nearly as well as some of the others did.

One can't doubt that there was a lot of individual talent in that squad. Man for man it really could've won it. But if all these great players aren't forming a team, what are you gonna do?

It's just like Brazil.

...

Except of course Brazil tend to win every now and then...
Genaia3
03-07-2006, 02:00
Liasia']Can't wait till the press starts on roo-ney:rolleyes:
Lay off Erikson, he's done at least as well as any other manager in the last 39 years.

When you've got a team that includes Gerrard, Terry, Lampard, Rooney, Joe Cole and Neville to name but a few it would be remarkably impressive had he done any worse than he has.

Incidentally I do not feel that scraping narrow wins against shit teams, clinging on for dear life against the likes of Paraguay and then walking off the pitch to say "job done" is doing a 'good job'. Nor is going out in three successive quarter finals with a team like the one we have.
[NS]Liasia
03-07-2006, 02:02
When you've got a team that includes Gerrard, Terry, Lampard, Rooney, Joe Cole and Neville to name but a few it would be remarkably impressive had he done any worse than he has.

Incidentally I do not feel that scraping narrow wins against shit teams, clinging on for dear life against the likes of Paraguay and then walking off the pitch to say "job done" is doing a 'good job'. Nor is going out in three successive quarter finals with a team like the one we have.
And if it were his fault i would agree, but I don't think it is. The manager always takes some shit, but I think if your'e going to blame anyone for the player's failure's it should be the players.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 02:04
Except of course Brazil tend to win every now and then...
That's because their individual talent is even better than the English'. Sometimes it's enough to get them over the line, sometimes it isn't.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 02:04
He's a nice guy and all but he is somewhat out of the loop on modern day football. He was once one of the top minds in football that helped to redefine the game. Not any more though.

Still I am quite positive that England will find Steve McLaren to be a total loss of a manager. Much worse than Sven.
Mooseica
03-07-2006, 02:08
That's because their individual talent is even better than the English'. Sometimes it's enough to get them over the line, sometimes it isn't.

*Shrug* You'd know better than me. In depth analysis of football (aha, what a laugh that is) kinda passed me by. Seems to me though, that a team that has won the world cup as many times as Brazil must have something more than just good players going for them.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 02:10
That's because their individual talent is even better than the English'. Sometimes it's enough to get them over the line, sometimes it isn't.
Leo shut up already with your anti-brazil rants saying that they can't play together as a team.

They stunk collectively but it is not so simple as saying the stars did not play together as a team. They did exactly that in qualifying finishing atop their group and there were moments where it was joyful to watch them play.

It was more a question of having a coach that was able to motivate the lineup of stars to strive for victory than creating a team. Some of their players have been together for nearly a decade. Get a clue.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 03:10
Leo shut up already with your anti-brazil rants saying that they can't play together as a team.
Hehe, offended?

Hey, do you know how many years I've been putting up with people putting down the German team? And don't think it would stop if they reach the Finals. Or if they win the thing.

Every single time modern Brazil goes to any sort of big competition, the talk is always about some sort of new Pelé who'll make the whole tournament his own. The players are all after being that one player. They're after individual glory, the team doesn't matter to them. Not with this generation anyways. Maybe it was different in 1994, but now, they're only after personal glory.

They deserved to go out, and they would've deserved it much earlier.

Having big stars is no good for a team. The only exception I can possibly see is France, because Zidane has nothing left to prove (and doesn't seem to me the character who would put himself above the team, unlike Ronaldo or Ronaldinho), and Henry as main striker plays in a position where he needs to go for individual glory to serve the team.

I watched Brazil play Croatia and I knew then that they had nothing. A bunch of big names, and that was that. I thought differently before the tournament, but I was swept up in the same rush of great expectations as everyone else. Maybe I am breaking some unwritten "Don't criticise Brazil" rules here, but I don't care. If they play like crap (relative to what they could have done, had they played together), I will say so.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 03:20
Hehe, offended?Hardly. I'm not Brazilian.

I dissagree with absolutely everything you have said about Brazil. Enough to wager saying that you understand nothing about football. I also see where your motivation for such baseless and poorly constructed opinions are coming from.

Hatred.

I'm not impressed.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 03:26
I dissagree with absolutely everything you have said about Brazil. Enough to wager saying that you understand nothing about football.
Feel free to wager whatever you want.

This Brazil team was crap from the outset and went on like that, all the way to their finish. Their players thought they were going to win it anyways, and so they might as well show off a bit so they can demand a few extra millions on their next club contracts.

What Brazil needs is a whole set of retirements, and some of those new kids directly from the academies to take over, before they go to Barca or Real. If we're lucky, we'll see a real Brazilian team in 2010. Before then, you won't catch me dead wanting them to win anything.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 03:31
Hatred.
Meh. There is only one team I genuinely dislike, and that's England.

Everyone else I watch and then form my opinions. That's what I've done here. As I told you before, I'm not in the business of admiring people for their reputations. But reputation was all this Brazilian team could manage, aside from some impressive shots from distance by a few gifted individuals.

To me they were boring and uninspiring, and they conveyed the impression that they were a bunch of individuals who just so happened to have to play this tournament together. Contrast that with any given number of teams who really wanted this, like Ghana or Australia.
AB Again
03-07-2006, 03:36
Hardly. I'm not Brazilian.

I dissagree with absolutely everything you have said about Brazil. Enough to wager saying that you understand nothing about football. I also see where your motivation for such baseless and poorly constructed opinions are coming from.

Hatred.

I'm not impressed.

He is right though, regardless of your opinion. A selecão não jogou nada. Why? Because the did not gel together as a team, the same problem England had.

In the Brazil side there were too many players concerned about the iimpression that they, as individuals are making, on the biggest stage in world football, and not enough concerned about providing oportunities for others to perform. The Brazilian manager, Parreira is about as adventurous as a trappist monk, and did not create the conditions for the team to play. The blame falls on the big name players and on the coach. In both England's and Brazil's cases.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 03:48
The quality of performances were perfectly consistent with previous world cups where they have won. Perhaps even better as this one included a brilliant thrashing of Japan where they contained themselves.

The difference and deciding factor was a question of hunger and desire for victory. When pushed to a higher standard against France they simply did not give the extra effort required.

There are so many contradictions in what you write about Brazil that I could tear your credibility apart like a paper kite if I was so inclined.

One example...

"Their players thought they were going to win it anyways, and so they might as well show off a bit so they can demand a few extra millions on their next club contracts."

The last thing that players who underachieved in this world cup (like Cafu, Roberto Carlos and Ronaldinho Gaúcho to name a few) are currently worried about are there salaries. These are players who have won everything there is to win. Some of them have done it several times. These are players who hav played for the best teams on earth. They've won everything a player can aspire to win. Showing off and salaries is the farthest thing from their minds. If you disagree with this then I'm inclined to ask why is it that they did so little showing off then?

You've said they were showing off.

Who showed off? Nobody.
When did it happen? It never did.
Has anybody ever been paid more for having showed off at a world cup? No
Has anybody ever been paid more for playing an important role in his team's success at the world cup? There is no better way to get noticed.

Later you say that Brazil needs a set of retirements to allow "some of those new kids directly from the academies to take over, before they go to Barca or Real."

Well in that case who would be worried about showing off for better salaries? A youngster plucked off the streets in Brazil or a veteran playing for Real Madrid or AC Milan? Following your logic, the youngster would have shown off because they obviously would have Barca and Madrid within sight of a few fancy dribbles.

Please... construct your opinions more intelligently. I know you can do better because I've seen you do it.

You make absolutely no sense and I can honestly feel your hatred flowing through your opinions. I have a nose for opinions inspired by hatred and I have nothing but contempt for them.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 03:54
He is right though, regardless of your opinion. A selecão não jogou nada. Why? Because the did not gel together as a team, the same problem England had. I totally disagree. The problem was not geling. It was simply a matter of being motivated to win. If they had not played anything they would not have got passed the first round. That is what I consider not playing anything. A Quarter final loss against a team like France is nothing to be ashamed of as far as I'm concerned.
Neu Leonstein
03-07-2006, 04:01
There are so many contradictions in what you write about Brazil that I could tear your credibility apart like a paper kite if I was so inclined.
Feel free. You know, with somewhere around 10,000 posts my "credibility" is the last thing I worry about when I post here. :D

Anyways, disregarding your anger, I can feel content that Brazil didn't make it any further, but that France did. Usually I'm not much of a France fan, but since they got out of the group stage I think they have played very well and I like watching them.

And to get back on topic, I'm looking at the reactions to the England v Portugal match on the BBC Forum right now. Nine out of twenty messages on the first page now say this:
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb606/F4441083?thread=3213322&skip=0&show=20

There is a lot of disappointment there, just like in the OP in this thread. Maybe things will change now that Eriksson is gone, but to be honest, I think the English team has been overrated for some time.
Someone called Terry Butcher (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5138886.stm) certainly thinks so.
It always seemed like the main thing England supporters got hung up about was the 5:1 thrashing they handed Germany. I don't think I watched the match (or if I did, I might have blocked it out :p ), but I do remember that just a few weeks before that England lost to Germany in London 1:0. Surely England's football community needs a change in attitude?
AB Again
03-07-2006, 04:27
I totally disagree. The problem was not geling. It was simply a matter of being motivated to win. If they had not played anything they would not have got passed the first round. That is what I consider not playing anything. A Quarter final loss against a team like France is nothing to be ashamed of as far as I'm concerned.

You understand nothing then about the attitude to football here in Brazil if you think that being knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter final stage is nothing to be ashamed of. There is an expectation, a demand, that the Brazilian team at least makes it to the final. The last time they didn't was 1990.

You show a lack of comprehension of what was wrong with Brazil. It was not a lack of desire. It was a lack of teamwork. Why was Henry unmarked when he scored, because Roberto Carlos had been too busy attacking to attend to his less glamorous defensive duties. Each and every player (with a few exceptions it has to be admitted) was most concerned to show off their attcking skills, and they simply did not concern themselves enough with their less impressive duties, like marking in midfield. How much space was given to Zidane, Malouda nad Ribery? No team could win doing that.

Teamwork was conspicuous by its absence.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 05:07
to be honest, I think the English team has been overrated for some time.

Nobody can overrate their own team like the English can. No doubts there. In the week that led up the match with Portugal, the English media was busy annoying Deco with questions like... "How would you compare Rooney with Pele?"
:D
Canada6
03-07-2006, 05:14
You understand nothing then about the attitude to football here in Brazil if you think that being knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter final stage is nothing to be ashamed of. There is an expectation, a demand, that the Brazilian team at least makes it to the final. The last time they didn't was 1990. The expecations are always the highest for Brazil. I've never said I've never understood that. But If I was Brazilian I would not feel the least bit ashamed of this group of players. They have given so much and Brazil cannot win every world cup. Just because the Brazilians worship their national team doesn't mean that they play crap if they lose to a team full of class in the quarters rather than picking up a Ukraine only to lose in the semis.

You show a lack of comprehension of what was wrong with Brazil. No. I simply disagree with what two of you are now saying.

It was not a lack of desire. It was a lack of teamwork. I would believe this if I had seen it. Brazil's passing was as fined tuned and cohesive as I've ever seen it. They simply lacked it when pressed harder by France.

Why was Henry unmarked when he scored, because Roberto Carlos had been too busy attacking to attend to his less glamorous defensive duties. He wasn't busy attacking. It was a set piece. He was right there. He screwed up his assignment. He and several other players didn't have the drive and passion that shows when a team really wants to win the cup.

I'm terribly sorry but Brazil wrote the book on teamwork. Some if not most of the players that were on this team have authored several chapters of it. Particularly the ones who **cked up the most in this one.

If it was a question of too much individuality and not enough team work then we would have seen spectacular individual feats with poor results. The exact opposite happened until their defeat. Brazil achieved good results with sub-par performances and self-restraint from showboating.
Cuation
03-07-2006, 08:02
Anyone remember the mess Sven had when he came? Remember he turned England around? Three quater finals does seem a decent record, he was organised and compent, he wasn't brilliant.

Some blame him for sticking with people. He stuck with Beckham, who created most of our goals in the 2006 cup. He stuck with Cole on the left and look what happend? In 2006, he suddenly discovered how to use his subs properly, the 4-5-1 formation was correct in everything but the choice of attacker.

What killed England was the long ball game they played. When we passed it around, we looked as good as anyone. So why we tended to uust hit up to the striker baffles me. Arsenal's 49ers didn't use long balls and look how succesful that team was
Demented Hamsters
03-07-2006, 08:44
Maybe things will change now that Eriksson is gone, but to be honest, I think the English team has been overrated for some time.

It always seemed like the main thing England supporters got hung up about was the 5:1 thrashing they handed Germany. I don't think I watched the match (or if I did, I might have blocked it out :p ), but I do remember that just a few weeks before that England lost to Germany in London 1:0. Surely England's football community needs a change in attitude?
That's always been the problem with English sports (not just football). Like any half-decent team they occasionally hit a purple patch and play well above themselves (eg. the 5 - 1 game*).
Unfortunately the English media (and fans), used to mediocrity and desperately over-optimistic as always, latch onto these aberations with all the vigour of a ferret attaching itself to your 'nads, delusionally thinking that this is 'THE SIGN' that the average days are past and it is the dawn of a new era of football greatness.
Unfortunately Reality has a nasty way of letting itself in unannounced and smacking you round the back of your head with a big axiom stick.



NZ has similar (but not quite as pronounced) feelings towards it's league and cricket teams.


*To put it in perspective, Since 2000, England have had a better result just twice (a 6 - 1 & 6 -0 thrashings of those football heavyweights, Iceland & Jamaica repectively).
Indeed, since 2000 they've played 70 games and managed to score 3 or more goals in a game in just 16, 6 games of which were against WC countries - Spain, Croatia(twice), Denmark, Argentina & Ukraine.
They scored 0 or 1 in 30 of those 70 games.

In other words, scoring goals is not something England does. But every so often they will go against their usual form and suddenly everyone in England talks them up as if they're world beaters and that this is the norm.
Penrhosgarnedd
03-07-2006, 08:57
Feel free. You know, with somewhere around 10,000 posts my "credibility" is the last thing I worry about when I post here. :D

Anyways, disregarding your anger, I can feel content that Brazil didn't make it any further, but that France did. Usually I'm not much of a France fan, but since they got out of the group stage I think they have played very well and I like watching them.

And to get back on topic, I'm looking at the reactions to the England v Portugal match on the BBC Forum right now. Nine out of twenty messages on the first page now say this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb606/F4441083?thread=3213322&skip=0&show=20

There is a lot of disappointment there, just like in the OP in this thread. Maybe things will change now that Eriksson is gone, but to be honest, I think the English team has been overrated for some time.
Someone called Terry Butcher (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/england/5138886.stm) certainly thinks so.
It always seemed like the main thing England supporters got hung up about was the 5:1 thrashing they handed Germany. I don't think I watched the match (or if I did, I might have blocked it out :p ), but I do remember that just a few weeks before that England lost to Germany in London 1:0. Surely England's football community needs a change in attitude?

I am not an england fan (I support Brasil) the England Press , Management and Supporters all thought after they hammered Germany 5-1 in Munich winning the world cup would be capable with the team they have. yes England were beaten 1-0 by Germany at the last Game at Wembley by a goal by Dietmar Hamman which was dull to say the least , Germany in WC 2002 were written off by the German Press as a no hope side they went on to become the runners up...now in the last few tournaments how would have Brasil got on in 2002 without Ronaldo , France without Zidane in 1998 , Brasil 1970 without Gerson , Pele , Carlos Alberto , Rivalinio ( best team of any tournament so far) to be honest 11 world class players!!!
In the bundesliga for years they have had an unhealthy amount of south american , turkish and other european players the german national side suffered due to this , the English Premiership again is losing focus , mad money is thrown at players and the homegrown talent is not getting a look in , for example look at Maniche terrible at chelsea but in a burgandy portugal shirt a decent player.
Sven isn't an idiot , he was motivated by money ( who would have turned down what was offered???) and this was shown in the team
what the English FA Need is
1.decent manager
2. no interference from the press and a bit of support from the press
3. a passionate team , not a bunch of clothes horses and posers...
4. the backbone to drop " Galacitos" players when out of form..
by the way for those who don't know who terry butcher is , past England defender and captain...famously split his head open playing for England against Sweden covered in blood and lost over a pint of blood in the course of the game...a passionate and fantastic player..what England and a few international teams are missing at the moment..
Who knows 5 years in one job might be too long , best look ahead and get rid of a few old timers..same with Brasil and France too...
Laerod
03-07-2006, 09:16
I totally disagree. The problem was not geling. It was simply a matter of being motivated to win. If they had not played anything they would not have got passed the first round. That is what I consider not playing anything. A Quarter final loss against a team like France is nothing to be ashamed of as far as I'm concerned.Considering how they were playing before...
So far, whom did they face? Australia, Croatia, and Japan in the first round. Then Ghana.
Australia: I love 'em to death and would have wished them more, but they aren't on a world class level. They had spirit, they fought hard, but something was lacking. Not really much of match for Brazil.
Croatia: They've had it. They had their high moments a Eurocup or two ago, but their sun has set. Again, not really a threat.
Japan: Had plenty problems of its own, and they managed to score first against Brazil.
Ghana: The two things that team lacked were an effective defence and the ability to make something of their chances. They were the ones taking initiative in the game against Brazil.
France: After the Ghana game, I didn't see Brazil going on. I predicted that they'd lose to the first team that could make something of goal shots and keep the back closed to some extent. And that's exactly what happened.
Sonaj
03-07-2006, 11:06
Nobody can overrate their own team like the English can. No doubts there. In the week that led up the match with Portugal, the English media was busy annoying Deco with questions like... "How would you compare Rooney with Pele?"
:D
To that question there's at least a very simple answer "I wouldn't".
Borgoa
03-07-2006, 11:15
I don't think it's fair to say that Svennis is an idiot.

Sure, he could really need some media management help. But, he certainly helped to turn England around from the mess it was in when he up took the job.

But on the other hand, some of his team decisions have left me slightly surprised also. He didn't seem to make use of the full potential of the team he had with him in Germany.

It's still sad to see the last Swede in the World Cup go home though...
Barcodius
03-07-2006, 11:29
To get this back to the subject of Sven....

So what went wrong....

1) He took 4 strikers. 2 were not fit, one was young and inexperienced and he had no intention of playing him. The final one was Crouch whose principal qualification is his height. Although he did put in a decent performance when he came on against Portugal, he is still not a world class striker.

2) Players visibly underperforming. Lampard being the prime example.

3) Tactics. Look back at those matches and you'll notice that we were most threatening when we went deep to the corners. Joe Cole, for all his flair never went anywhere near the corner flag. He cut infield at exactly the same spot every time. Beckham was roaming around a relatively small area and also rarely made it to the corner. When Lennon and Downing came on, we went to the corners and had time to get someone in the box to cross to. Towards the end of the Portugal match, Gerrard made a couple of runs down the left wing towards the corner and that was when we looked most like scoring.

We had no strikers and no width. Both the responsibility of the manager. As for players underperforming, it happens from time to time. But it should not be allowed to go on for 5 matches on the trot, whoever they are. If they are not on form, they should not be starting.

I have NO confidence in McLaren. And I'm a boro fan.
Jwp-serbu
03-07-2006, 11:50
well it's only soccer.............. LOL;)
Penrhosgarnedd
03-07-2006, 11:54
As Bill Shankley famously said " Football or life or death , it's much more important than that"
welcome to the new religion for the 21st centuary..better than a cold church on a sunday morning!!!!
Barcodius
03-07-2006, 11:59
Nope. Its football.

Except to about 150 million people out of 6 billion.
Canada6
03-07-2006, 14:02
Nobody can overrate their own team like the English can. No doubts there. In the week that led up the match with Portugal, the English media was busy annoying Deco with questions like... "How would you compare Rooney with Pele?"To that question there's at least a very simple answer "I wouldn't".

Deco gave a better answer. He just laughed.
Cuation
03-07-2006, 14:28
Regarding Englang against Germany: The Wembely one so an England team in tatters, demorlised, the manager losing control and Southgate in midfield. The 5-1m team where a lot better but we could easily have been 2-0 down in the first ten minutes. Gerrad's goal and Seamen's save changed that game

1) He took 4 strikers. 2 were not fit, one was young and inexperienced and he had no intention of playing him. The final one was Crouch whose principal qualification is his height. Although he did put in a decent performance when he came on against Portugal, he is still not a world class striker.


Crouch is a good forward, he doesn't score but he links up the play. Well he did when England stopped long balling it. He was right to take him, should have used Walcott and dropped Jenas for a striker
Demented Hamsters
03-07-2006, 15:19
I think the biggest problem with English football is their lack of desire to score goals. And it's not just at the top level; it goes all the way down.
I remember years ago reading of a couple of mathematicians analysed hundreds (if not thousands) of football games over all English divisions and found that well over half the games ended in 0 - 0 or 1 - 0.
I read this as having the attitude of not so much wanting to score as wanting to remain scoreless.

If they want to be a international force they need to do something about this.

I think introducing bonus points in division games for extra goals scored might help. In the Super 14 Rugby comp in the Southern Hemisphere a team can get a bonus point for scoring 4 tries in a match, regardless of whether they win or not.
Why not have the same in football? A bonus point if a team scores 3 goals?
Add a bit more interest to some games, especially at the top and bottom of the tables. And it would instil a sense of wanting to score goals in the players. Which surely is a good thing.

My tuppance worth.
Cuation
03-07-2006, 16:18
Some teams go into some amtches looking for 0-0 b normally both sides work hard to try and score a goal. Mostly things are quite even so it is a bit hard to rack up 3-0 scorelines and some teams tend to stop at that point, preferring not to humliate anyone.

Englang's problem seems to be more the long ball. Why they do it when they play a passing game for their clubs is beyond me
Penrhosgarnedd
03-07-2006, 16:30
I think the biggest problem with English football is their lack of desire to score goals. And it's not just at the top level; it goes all the way down.
I remember years ago reading of a couple of mathematicians analysed hundreds (if not thousands) of football games over all English divisions and found that well over half the games ended in 0 - 0 or 1 - 0.
I read this as having the attitude of not so much wanting to score as wanting to remain scoreless.

If they want to be a international force they need to do something about this.

I think introducing bonus points in division games for extra goals scored might help. In the Super 14 Rugby comp in the Southern Hemisphere a team can get a bonus point for scoring 4 tries in a match, regardless of whether they win or not.
Why not have the same in football? A bonus point if a team scores 3 goals?
Add a bit more interest to some games, especially at the top and bottom of the tables. And it would instil a sense of wanting to score goals in the players. Which surely is a good thing.

My tuppance worth.


Just by reading your first sentance it's a load of old bollocks , I can't think of a more attack minded league in the world than the premiership , thats what most of the teams do , very similer to the Ajax side of the 1970's total football , what English teams lack are flair ( and keeping the ball and a good passing game)but saying they lack the desire to score goals..what a crock of crap you are talking....Arsenal hammering Middlesboro 7-0 , man utd and liverpool chalking up 4-1 wins same for the chelski...champions league finals 3-2 (1999) and 2005(3-3) pens etc...I think you are from the southern hemisphere ( aus or nz) as someone said before...you stick the barbies leave the English to the football!!! shame england tactically naive..I don't think so just lacking in passion ( too cool to be beaten) still when we have a southern hemisphere world cup winner then I'll listen to your tatics...thank you and goodnight
Demented Hamsters
04-07-2006, 04:25
Just by reading your first sentance it's a load of old bollocks , I can't think of a more attack minded league in the world than the premiership , thats what most of the teams do , very similer to the Ajax side of the 1970's total football , what English teams lack are flair ( and keeping the ball and a good passing game)but saying they lack the desire to score goals..what a crock of crap you are talking....Arsenal hammering Middlesboro 7-0 , man utd and liverpool chalking up 4-1 wins same for the chelski...champions league finals 3-2 (1999) and 2005(3-3) pens etc...I think you are from the southern hemisphere ( aus or nz) as someone said before...you stick the barbies leave the English to the football!!! shame england tactically naive..I don't think so just lacking in passion ( too cool to be beaten) still when we have a southern hemisphere world cup winner then I'll listen to your tatics...thank you and goodnight
Right. So four games out of 380 games played in an entire season proves that English football is all about attack.
Well of course.

A few bits of informations that you might find elucidating:

In the English Premiership 05/06 season just ended, 380 games were played:
29 games ended in 0 - 0
81 games ended in 1 - 0
31 games ended in 1 - 1

Thus, nearly 40% of all games resulted in one of the above scores.
Add in:
58 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have a League where in 52% of all games, 2 goals or less are scored.

Another factual tidbit for you:
944 goals were scored in the season - an average of just under 2.5 per game.

30% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0.
Wow.
What an 'attack-minded' league, eh?

The lower leagues are just as boring.
In the Football League Championship 05/06 season just ended, 552 games were played::
52 games ended in 0 - 0
85 games ended in 1 - 0
88 games ended in 1 - 1

In this case, 41% of all games ended in one of the above scores.
Add in this result:
63 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have 52% of all games resulting in 2 goals or less being scored.

1341 goals were scored in the season - an average of slightly more than 2.4 per game.

Actually the lower league is slightly better: only 25% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0. Whooo! What excitement to be had there!


Then there's the England team:
The England team since 2000 have played 78 games:
They failed to score in 15 of those games
They scored one goal in 17 games.
Meaning that in almost 1/2 (32/78) the games they play, they score 1 or 0 goals.
Out of 55 games played in the World Cup, England have:
failed to score 14 times
scored one goal in 18 games

So, in nearly 60% of their games at the WC, England score 1 or none goals.


Real attacking spirit there.


But every so often an English team will have an amazing result (like the 7-0 or the 5-1 England/Germany game a few years back) and the English fans will delude themselves that this is the norm and their teams are more than capable of attacking.



Incidently, A Southern Hemisphere team has won the World Cup. In fact three teams have, for a total of 9 times between them - over 1/2 of the WCs.

Tell you what: If ever England manage to get past the Quarterfinals again, feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my arse.
Until then, well...enjoy your exciting 0-0 and 1-0 games.
AB Again
04-07-2006, 04:41
Demented Hamsters.

Several points.

1. Attack mindedness is not measured by goals scored, it is measured by goal attempts. Good defending and goalkeeping are part of football too.

2. Try running the same analysis on the other three principle European leagues and you will find that the EPL is about the same as any of them.

3. Compare the performances of the English side against those of the other top twenty ranked European sides, and the results in terms of goals scored will be about the same.

4. The leagues in South America produce about the same averages as the European lower leagues.

England are lacking a second genuine striker. The teams that are doing well are those that have two (or more) goal scorers (Germany, Italy) or have playeed for a long time with one front man (France Portugal). England were forced into playing a style they were not accustomed to by Owen's injury and the lack of foresight of Eriksson. I still don't understand why he selected Walcott, and I doubt we will ever know. He should certainly have taken someone who could have risen to the occasion
Cuation
04-07-2006, 09:21
He took Walcott, I'm guessing, becuase Arsene Wegner, a great manager with a habit of taking young players and turning them into stars, suggested it. Sven had seen Walcott train but my guess is Sven lost his nerve going into the World Cup itself
Kradlumania
04-07-2006, 09:42
Strange... Seems to me that Eriksson has had the best results of any England team manager since aboiut 1970. That says a lot for all those "English" team managers.

Admittedly his tactics were crap, but then so were the players.

Lampard had 35 shots during the tournament (including the final penalty) and barely bothered the goalie.

Gerrard became the invisible man in the last 2 games.

Ferdinand doesn't understand that when you have 5 midfield and one striker you should stop playing the long ball.
Peisandros
04-07-2006, 09:54
Well, he's the past now.
Kradlumania
04-07-2006, 09:56
Right. So four games out of 380 games played in an entire season proves that English football is all about attack.
Well of course.

A few bits of informations that you might find elucidating:

In the English Premiership 05/06 season just ended, 380 games were played:
29 games ended in 0 - 0
81 games ended in 1 - 0
31 games ended in 1 - 1

Thus, nearly 40% of all games resulted in one of the above scores.
Add in:
58 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have a League where in 52% of all games, 2 goals or less are scored.

Another factual tidbit for you:
944 goals were scored in the season - an average of just under 2.5 per game.

30% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0.
Wow.
What an 'attack-minded' league, eh?

The lower leagues are just as boring.
In the Football League Championship 05/06 season just ended, 552 games were played::
52 games ended in 0 - 0
85 games ended in 1 - 0
88 games ended in 1 - 1

In this case, 41% of all games ended in one of the above scores.
Add in this result:
63 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have 52% of all games resulting in 2 goals or less being scored.

1341 goals were scored in the season - an average of slightly more than 2.4 per game.

Actually the lower league is slightly better: only 25% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0. Whooo! What excitement to be had there!


Then there's the England team:
The England team since 2000 have played 78 games:
They failed to score in 15 of those games
They scored one goal in 17 games.
Meaning that in almost 1/2 (32/78) the games they play, they score 1 or 0 goals.
Out of 55 games played in the World Cup, England have:
failed to score 14 times
scored one goal in 18 games

So, in nearly 60% of their games at the WC, England score 1 or none goals.


Real attacking spirit there.

But every so often an English team will have an amazing result (like the 7-0 or the 5-1 England/Germany game a few years back) and the English fans will delude themselves that this is the norm and their teams are more than capable of attacking.

Incidently, A Southern Hemisphere team has won the World Cup. In fact three teams have, for a total of 9 times between them - over 1/2 of the WCs.

Tell you what: If ever England manage to get past the Quarterfinals again, feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my arse.
Until then, well...enjoy your exciting 0-0 and 1-0 games.


Wow, what a load of crap. You may know a lot of statistics, but it seems you've never been to a football match.
Peisandros
04-07-2006, 09:58
*snip
Yay!
Cookie for you.
Demented Hamsters
04-07-2006, 10:13
Wow, what a load of crap. You may know a lot of statistics, but it seems you've never been to a football match.
Wow. What a great comeback. You've obviously put a lot of time, effort, thought and preparation into that.
I apologise and take back what I said. You're blistering comeback kills all the stats I produced
Mstreeted
04-07-2006, 10:16
Wow. What a great comeback. You've obviously put a lot of time, effort, thought and preparation into that.
I apologise and take back what I said. You're blistering comeback kills all the stats I produced

i detect a hint of sarcy-freshness

...i dont really follow football, and up until a week ago had no idea about the offside rule...so i'm not really 'qualified' to comment on Sven's ability to coach

so therefore my comment is based on his ability to string a sentance together

semi-idgit
Demented Hamsters
04-07-2006, 10:32
Demented Hamsters.

Several points.

1. Attack mindedness is not measured by goals scored, it is measured by goal attempts. Good defending and goalkeeping are part of football too.

2. Try running the same analysis on the other three principle European leagues and you will find that the EPL is about the same as any of them.

3. Compare the performances of the English side against those of the other top twenty ranked European sides, and the results in terms of goals scored will be about the same.

4. The leagues in South America produce about the same averages as the European lower leagues.

England are lacking a second genuine striker. The teams that are doing well are those that have two (or more) goal scorers (Germany, Italy) or have playeed for a long time with one front man (France Portugal). England were forced into playing a style they were not accustomed to by Owen's injury and the lack of foresight of Eriksson. I still don't understand why he selected Walcott, and I doubt we will ever know. He should certainly have taken someone who could have risen to the occasion

You might be right, but until someone produces the requisite stats, that's all conjecture.

Unlike my point that England is a football playing nation that doesn't score goals. I've backed that up with stats.


They play very defensively (indeed they play most sports defensively). The England team has the record for 0-0 games in the WC, which should tell you something.
Note the stat I made about their WC appearances: in 60% of all the games they've played at the WC, they've scored 1 or 0 goals.
Which is a record.
Which means that all the other top football nations score more goals than England do at the WC.
Which means England must play more defensively than the other teams.
Which supports my premise.


I can hardly see that the lack of goal scoring that is apparent through-out all of English football is due solely to great goal-keeping. Good defending maybe, but that just backs up my main point: England plays defensively.
Always has, and, it seems, always will. Until they change their mindset about that and cultivate their attack and promote positive forward play, they always going to be a Quarterfinal side.


England is always lacking strikers, because their domestic game doesn't favour them (as my stats show). Rooney, I feel, would be better as a defender. He has the physique and temperment of a great defender. He's not bullied by anyone (who would dare?!) and would certainly intimidate even the best attackers.


No idea why he took Walcott along. He tried to defend it the other day by saying it was great experience for him. What experience? Learning how to keep a bench warm?
Walcott was apparently making a video diary of the WC. Some wags have suggested he title it, "What I did during my holidays".
Neu Leonstein
04-07-2006, 12:08
Well, one German commentator certainly has a go in this article:
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,424835,00.html

Talks about how football in England is just about celebrities, WAGS and haircuts. Reality TV, so to speak. And so they all expected, they all said they "deserved" - when they didn't.

Not only that, no, the bad guy now is not Rooney, who kicked the guy in the nuts, told both his own captain and coach to "Fuck Off", tried to find and bash Christiano Ronaldo after the match...no, the bad guy is C. Ronaldo himself. Who actually performed for his team. And who's going to Real for 30 million Euros.

To translate the final two paragraphs:
Ronaldo really doesn't have to worry. Real Madrid is ready to pay good money (30 million Euros are rumoured) for him, and England stays behind with the troop that was once called "The Golden Generation".

Pity then that the only thing golden about these guys were their credit cards and the hair colours of their women, but not the cup they wanted to win.
Penrhosgarnedd
04-07-2006, 12:52
99% of stats are total bollocks....anyway on that bombshell , when you hear professional footballers talk about English Leagues they talk about high tempo , attacking football , the 7-0 / 4-1 games are not isolated games , by the way demented have you seen much UK and English football live?
in 1994 Ronaldo came and experienced the world cup with Brasil as an unused sub , you can't get the experience sat at home , maybe it will make england more hungry for winning tournaments in future , still they have a world cup ( all be it 40 years ago) bit more than portugal ever have ( we can't take that away from the English)..
maybe this golden generation , need to concentrate on the football , get the press to forget about the WAGS( Wives and Girlfriends) and start winning things...still now Brasil are out ( same sort of problem , no lack of talent just unable to transfer it on the pitch this time)..I think Germany can do it..saying that are they the best team? best mentally prepared and briefed side by a mile...
The blessed Chris
04-07-2006, 15:26
No shit.

Any other manager, paid sums far in deficit of him, would have had the bollocks to drop Lampard and Beckham by the end of the Group stages, and would have selected a greater range of strikers.

Discuss the culpability of the players ad infinatum, but they took their directiosn from Sven.
The blessed Chris
04-07-2006, 15:30
Right. So four games out of 380 games played in an entire season proves that English football is all about attack.
Well of course.

A few bits of informations that you might find elucidating:

In the English Premiership 05/06 season just ended, 380 games were played:
29 games ended in 0 - 0
81 games ended in 1 - 0
31 games ended in 1 - 1

Thus, nearly 40% of all games resulted in one of the above scores.
Add in:
58 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have a League where in 52% of all games, 2 goals or less are scored.

Another factual tidbit for you:
944 goals were scored in the season - an average of just under 2.5 per game.

30% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0.
Wow.
What an 'attack-minded' league, eh?

The lower leagues are just as boring.
In the Football League Championship 05/06 season just ended, 552 games were played::
52 games ended in 0 - 0
85 games ended in 1 - 0
88 games ended in 1 - 1

In this case, 41% of all games ended in one of the above scores.
Add in this result:
63 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have 52% of all games resulting in 2 goals or less being scored.

1341 goals were scored in the season - an average of slightly more than 2.4 per game.

Actually the lower league is slightly better: only 25% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0. Whooo! What excitement to be had there!


Then there's the England team:
The England team since 2000 have played 78 games:
They failed to score in 15 of those games
They scored one goal in 17 games.
Meaning that in almost 1/2 (32/78) the games they play, they score 1 or 0 goals.
Out of 55 games played in the World Cup, England have:
failed to score 14 times
scored one goal in 18 games

So, in nearly 60% of their games at the WC, England score 1 or none goals.


Real attacking spirit there.


But every so often an English team will have an amazing result (like the 7-0 or the 5-1 England/Germany game a few years back) and the English fans will delude themselves that this is the norm and their teams are more than capable of attacking.



Incidently, A Southern Hemisphere team has won the World Cup. In fact three teams have, for a total of 9 times between them - over 1/2 of the WCs.

Tell you what: If ever England manage to get past the Quarterfinals again, feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my arse.
Until then, well...enjoy your exciting 0-0 and 1-0 games.

I am actually inclined to ask quite when you last went to a football match as well. Shockingly, attacking football teams do not produce5-4 wins every week. Arsenal or Man United may well win 1 or 2-0, but I guarentee that they will create enough chances to score 5.

I am, also, assuming that you're not English, since you may otherwise have watched England under Venebles, Keegan and Robson.
AB Again
04-07-2006, 16:13
DH. A few of your figures are slightly wrong (source please), but not sufficient to make any real difference. However looking at the four principal leagues in the world (not just Europe) the variation in the number of low scoring matches is minimal, and not statistically significant.
All data from the season 2005/6 as given at http://soccernet.espn.go.com/
England EPL 380 Games
0 - 0 33 8%
1 - 0 83 21%
1 - 1 32 8%
2 - 0 63 16%

Total 211 = 55%

Spain - La liga 380 Games
0 - 0 27 7%
1 - 0 73 19%
1 - 1 59 15%
2 - 0 55 14%

Total 214 = 56%

Italy Serie A 380 Games
0 - 0 31 8%
1 - 0 57 15%
1 - 1 40 10%
2 - 0 45 11%

Total 173 = 46%

Germany Bundersliga 306
0 - 0 24 8%
1 - 0 41 13%
1 - 1 48 15%
2 - 0 40 13%

Total 153 = 50%

So if goals scored were a reliable indicator of attacking football, the EPL is not significantly less attacking than any of the other three major club leagues.
Penrhosgarnedd
04-07-2006, 16:18
No shit.

Any other manager, paid sums far in deficit of him, would have had the bollocks to drop Lampard and Beckham by the end of the Group stages, and would have selected a greater range of strikers.

Discuss the culpability of the players ad infinatum, but they took their directiosn from Sven.


the thread started as "Sven Goran Eriksson is an idiot"I would't call Sven an idiot , he has walked away with a huge chunk of cash , as a beaten quarter final match , he is financially secure for life , well done to the guy..... shame there was not an english coach who could have done the job ( might have been more successful who knows)
1. won the Scudetto ( Italy ) with enough cash to float a large third world country in the worlds most corrupt league
2. did drop and sub beckham , saying that drop beckham play lampard instead who knows what will happen..
3. as stated previously , the experience would have benifited Theo Wallcot even though he didnt play
4. Defoe was not playing to any sort of form in the build up to the world cup , yes maybe take an extra striker but who knew Michael Owen would be injured...
5. Even if he didnt know much about british football when he came here , he was prepared to do his homework , at the time a player from Charlton would have never been considered for England Selelction , Chris Powell (30 years old at the time, was the opta highest rated left back in the premiership) sven called him up even though the press made a right stink about it...sven was not afraid to try things out , maybe at club level with 42 games you can tinker , but only a few chances at international level.....
who would have thought Greece would have won Euro 2004? a team so poor they didn't qualify for the world cup 06???? no shocks this time like 4 years ago ( South Korea , Senegal)
saying that I am not an england fan , but I think they will win Euro 2008
The blessed Chris
04-07-2006, 16:23
the thread started as "Sven Goran Eriksson is an idiot"I would't call Sven an idiot , he has walked away with a huge chunk of cash , as a beaten quarter final match , he is financially secure for life , well done to the guy..... shame there was not an english coach who could have done the job ( might have been more successful who knows)
1. won the Scudetto ( Italy ) with enough cash to float a large third world country in the worlds most corrupt league
2. did drop and sub beckham , saying that drop beckham play lampard instead who knows what will happen..
3. as stated previously , the experience would have benifited Theo Wallcot even though he didnt play
4. Defoe was not playing to any sort of form in the build up to the world cup , yes maybe take an extra striker but who knew Michael Owen would be injured...
5. Even if he didnt know much about british football when he came here , he was prepared to do his homework , at the time a player from Charlton would have never been considered for England Selelction , Chris Powell (30 years old at the time, was the opta highest rated left back in the premiership) sven called him up even though the press made a right stink about it...sven was not afraid to try things out , maybe at club level with 42 games you can tinker , but only a few chances at international level.....
who would have thought Greece would have won Euro 2004? a team so poor they didn't qualify for the world cup 06???? no shocks this time like 4 years ago ( South Korea , Senegal)
saying that I am not an england fan , but I think they will win Euro 2008

It wouldn't surprise me. at all if we did.

If one actually analyses Sven's record in Italy, he is what one would label a "league" manager. He produces mediocrity ad infinatum, and simply grinds out titles. However, his style, and lack and motivational capacity, rendered him unable to guide England to success.

I would still contend that the Manchester United youth team who will emerge this season may well save England.... again.....
Cuation
05-07-2006, 15:50
Man United youth team are good? Well Man United should do well yet again

England needed a cup manager or even better, a manager who excels in both cups and league games. Sven will grind way through qualfiers and group stages but can't inspire when it is needed. Compent, not brilliant

Regarding the EPL: IUt isn't for want of trying that scores are low but the nature of football and how close the teams are in indivdual matches. Even when Arsenal went 49 games unbeaten, they did have some really close calls. Mostly against Portsmouth who we also bet 5-1 in an FA Cup game. The two close games where most exciciting in my view

Remember Liverpool's 1-0m win over Arsenal this season? Arsenal where played off the park and any less of a keeper then Lehman would have conceded at least three yet his one man defiance frustrated Liverpool for so long. 0-0,1-0 games do not equal boring, just a seemingly close contest, last nights semi final is another good example

This World Cup has the least goals scored correct? Yet it has been called the most exciiting World Cup for ages and it has been brilliant to watch
Rhursbourg
05-07-2006, 16:21
Right.
And you have a League where in 52% of all games, 2 goals or less are scored.

Another factual tidbit for you:
944 goals were scored in the season - an average of just under 2.5 per game.

30% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0.
Wow.
What an 'attack-minded' league, eh?

The lower leagues are just as boring.
In the Football League Championship 05/06 season just ended, 552 games were played::
52 games ended in 0 - 0
85 games ended in 1 - 0
88 games ended in 1 - 1

In this case, 41% of all games ended in one of the above scores.
Add in this result:
63 games ended in 2 - 0

And you have 52% of all games resulting in 2 goals or less being scored.

1341 goals were scored in the season - an average of slightly more than 2.4 per game.

Actually the lower league is slightly better: only 25% of all games end in 0-0 or 1-0. Whooo! What excitement to be had there!


.

what do you expect when by halway through the league most pitches of the lwoer league are either ripped up turned into quagmires or nearly claled off every week beacuse of the weather , and also the style of paly is lot different form the higher leagues mainly they are trying ot stay in the league or not get relegated to lower leagues, The League Teams are almost fighting for their lives virtually every week in