Guest Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 8 hours ago, Smiley Culture said: Whether they're a traditional name or not, that matters little. There are many examples of traditional names in Football who are crap. Not really. If you ask a non football fan who will win between Chile or England, most would probably say England. If you ask a football fan it's vice versa. This is what makes England underachievers. They may have done fuck all for a long time but they are still the home to one of the biggest leagues in the world and are recognized at a worldwide level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 There's a very simple way to calculate over and underachieving and that is to look at the bookmakers odds. Particularly going into individual games during the tournament as those probabilities are more accurate than outright odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero 5,265 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 England of 2004 -2008 immediately springs to mind. Should of gotten a lot more out of that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panna King 1,012 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 8 hours ago, SirBalon said: Iceland are certainly overachieving without a doubt. As for everything else, it's hard to say because generations of footballers comes into play here and not just getting one or two top players coming through into a particular generation at any given time. Longterm planning is also at stake here and for me fundamentally is the situation within each respective league and how seriously the production line is being taken and how much investment its getting too. How many of those home players are protagonists within their own league and how many are protagonists at the top clubs! All of that matters when the national team manager selects 22 players for qualification and subsequently the competition itself if successful in qualifying. The coach is important but not fundamental because at international level he needs to be more of a mediator with egos and then have a top staff to analyse games along with his own acumen. Iceland were predicted to be good though, they had a superb under 21 team a few years ago and a lot of the players are still together now, so its a good team in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Profesor 1,457 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Cicero said: England of 2004 -2008 immediately springs to mind. Should of gotten a lot more out of that team. The best english team I remember was the 98 one. Very good team. The problem with England is that they neither have exceptional talent to flat out beat lesser competition nor an organised with the fighting spirit to overachieve, such as Portugal and Uruguay. They´re in the middle and in the end they get outclassed like they were by Germany in ´10 or Brazil in 02, or outfought like they were by Portugal in 04 and 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 England's problem is management in my opinion. While this current England side are not one of their better teams, they could still work to some extent if you had a better manager. The problem is they want to keep with this domestic philosophy and the English managers in the premier league are all gash. Meanwhile the best English managers which are in the championship, should they get the job won't get the respect of the players so its a lose lose situation. In comparison to Peru, we've had mostly foreign managers in our history and I couldn't bear to see a Peruvian manager be in charge of our NT. They're all awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero 5,265 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Was all about balance really, which ties down to management. In hindsight, a midfield three of Scholes, Hargreaves, and Carrick would of performed much better than a midfield three of Lampard, Gerrard, and Hargreaves. But, Lampard was coming back from winning back to back league titles and Gerrard a Champions League, mixed together with outstanding performances in the league and in Europe, it would of been mad to not include them in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub 2,508 Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Ivory Coast- Considering the amount of talent they had but always were eliminated in the group stage of the WC especially the last one and didn't even performed well at the AFCON as well. Algeria- Their golden generation isn't even near reaching their end but still they couldn't reach the World Cup considering the personnel they had in the team . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.