Discussion:
Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
(too old to reply)
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-02 20:28:08 UTC
Permalink
So the SGE era comes to a fitting close, with a series of the most inept
displays from a talented England team in living memory. It is clear that
SGE was simply out of his depth, from his ridiculous selections for the
squad (has anyone even SEEN Theo Walcott this month?), to his tactical
ineptitude in playing aggressive, scoring, midfielders like Lampard in
deep positions, pumping long balls up to lone strikers, to putting a
natural go-forward player like Hargreaves in a holding role.

I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.

I feel sorry for the players, as they were sold a bag of goods. Sven's
love affair with Beckham, when he had clearly become a one trick pony,
is typical. The only problem is I am not sure that McClaren is going to
change the culture that much. English players probably won't reach the
skill levels on the ball of some of the South Americans and Southern
Europeans. On the other hand, there are English characteristics like
sheer determination and endeavour that they have over and above almost
everyone they play, and they need and deserve a coach that can
capitalize on them. SGE had no clue about that, and the result was a
series of misguided and lacklustre performances in Germany that made it
almost a relief to see it ended. Now, perhaps, England can a) appoint a
captain that leads from the front by example, and b) develop a tactical
approach that can actually worry the teams they play.

William Clark
James Farrar
2006-07-02 20:48:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?

If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-02 22:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.

William Clark
James Farrar
2006-07-02 22:38:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.

Name them, or state there are none.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 02:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.

The fact is England's whole performance was far below (realistic)
expectation, and the selections and tactical approach completely lacking.

William Clark
Diabolik
2006-07-03 03:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
The fact is England's whole performance was far below (realistic)
expectation, and the selections and tactical approach completely lacking.
I thought the tactical approach and subs by Sven against Portugal were quite
good.

If England had won on penalties Sven would have been a hero.

Why don't you blame Lampard, Beckham and Rooney for having crappy games?
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 03:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diabolik
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are
they
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better
than
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
The fact is England's whole performance was far below (realistic)
expectation, and the selections and tactical approach completely lacking.
I thought the tactical approach and subs by Sven against Portugal were quite
good.
If England had won on penalties Sven would have been a hero.
Why don't you blame Lampard, Beckham and Rooney for having crappy games?
I have said they had crappy games. Beckham because he has long been out
of form and past his sell-by date, Lampard because he was played in a
deep role, from which he could not attack the defence and get into good
shooting positions, and Rooney, because he was left alone up front,
triple-marked, with nothing but long balls coming at him from deep.

Oh, yes, they had poor games, but these were to be expected given the
terrible tactical approach taken by SGE.

William Clark
mof
2006-07-03 05:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Look at what England has achieved in WC history. Look at what Terry
Butcher says. The simple fact is that England is not a world class
football nation. It is easy to score against West Bromwhich and other
PL teams.

My guess for this WC is that England did well considered the material
they had. Their main star was a "has been" playing for an inferior club
in Spain. A realistic view is to say that England should feel proud
about topping its group and avoiding Germany.

Even so, I have to say that Svennis should have deployed his men in a
different way, but, we will never know if the end result would have
been any better.

I think one of the main problems people have with Sven is that he is
unbritish and that the players played without passion. I too think that
it was a problem, but, the players still have a responsibility. I mean,
if my boss tells me to not make love to my beloved so passionately, I
would tell him to fuck off.

In any case, what about previous managers? And what about british
leadership in general? Surely Svennis could have been some uppercrust
officer in the army?

/Marcus
James Farrar
2006-07-03 09:28:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:54:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
On paper.

If the actual performance was an underperformance, then England must
have been expected by you to make the semi-finals.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 13:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:54:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
On paper.
If the actual performance was an underperformance, then England must
have been expected by you to make the semi-finals.
Yes, playing Portugal in the quarterfinals, I did expect England to make
the semifinals. They had the draw on their side to do so. Add to that
the suspensions of two key Portuguese players, and England clearly
should have won. But instead, SGE's selection and tactics barely
contrived one decent chance against a no better than average team. So,
indeed, given the draw and the opportunity it offered, it was a classic
underperformance.

William Clark
James Farrar
2006-07-03 21:08:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:12:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:54:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
On paper.
If the actual performance was an underperformance, then England must
have been expected by you to make the semi-finals.
Yes, playing Portugal in the quarterfinals,
Wisdom after (the start of) the event.

Logic before the tournament said it was likely England would play
Germany in the round of 16 and lose.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-04 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:12:43 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:54:06 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:04:58 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by James Farrar
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:28:08 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
Are England in the top four teams in the world talent-wise or are they
not?
If they are, who are the teams (maximum of three!) who are better than
them?
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here.
England can only be said to have "failed" if they are expected, on an
average performance, to be in the top four (that is, to make the
semi-finals). Therefore, there can only be a maximum of three teams
clearly better than England.
Name them, or state there are none.
On paper, or on actual showing? That's the key.
On paper.
If the actual performance was an underperformance, then England must
have been expected by you to make the semi-finals.
Yes, playing Portugal in the quarterfinals,
Wisdom after (the start of) the event.
Logic before the tournament said it was likely England would play
Germany in the round of 16 and lose.
Yes, but they did not, and should not have lost to a team like Portugal.
You cannot say where a team should advance to ahead of a tournament, but
you certainly can once all the draw unfolds.

William Clark
s***@get2net.dk
2006-07-06 11:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Yes, but they did not, and should not have lost to a team like Portugal.
Why not? Don't they usually?

/Martin
Jughead
2006-07-02 21:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
So the SGE era comes to a fitting close, with a series of the most inept
displays from a talented England team in living memory. It is clear that
SGE was simply out of his depth, from his ridiculous selections for the
squad (has anyone even SEEN Theo Walcott this month?), to his tactical
ineptitude in playing aggressive, scoring, midfielders like Lampard in
deep positions, pumping long balls up to lone strikers, to putting a
natural go-forward player like Hargreaves in a holding role.
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
I feel sorry for the players, as they were sold a bag of goods. Sven's
love affair with Beckham, when he had clearly become a one trick pony,
is typical. The only problem is I am not sure that McClaren is going to
change the culture that much. English players probably won't reach the
skill levels on the ball of some of the South Americans and Southern
Europeans. On the other hand, there are English characteristics like
sheer determination and endeavour that they have over and above almost
everyone they play, and they need and deserve a coach that can
capitalize on them. SGE had no clue about that, and the result was a
series of misguided and lacklustre performances in Germany that made it
almost a relief to see it ended. Now, perhaps, England can a) appoint a
captain that leads from the front by example, and b) develop a tactical
approach that can actually worry the teams they play.
William Clark
One paper called it the silver lining of the WC campaign. Atleast no
more Sven....

-Aravind
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-02 21:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
So the SGE era comes to a fitting close, with a series of the most inept
displays from a talented England team in living memory. It is clear that
SGE was simply out of his depth, from his ridiculous selections for the
squad (has anyone even SEEN Theo Walcott this month?), to his tactical
ineptitude in playing aggressive, scoring, midfielders like Lampard in
deep positions, pumping long balls up to lone strikers, to putting a
natural go-forward player like Hargreaves in a holding role.
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
By your logic then Brazil, Greece and probably Germany are the only
successful teams in the world?

Remember before Sven came along England were in real danger of NOT
MAKING Wc '02.

And better to have a one trick pony like Beckham than a no trick pony
like Lampard.
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-02 22:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Post by William A. T. Clark
So the SGE era comes to a fitting close, with a series of the most inept
displays from a talented England team in living memory. It is clear that
SGE was simply out of his depth, from his ridiculous selections for the
squad (has anyone even SEEN Theo Walcott this month?), to his tactical
ineptitude in playing aggressive, scoring, midfielders like Lampard in
deep positions, pumping long balls up to lone strikers, to putting a
natural go-forward player like Hargreaves in a holding role.
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
By your logic then Brazil, Greece and probably Germany are the only
successful teams in the world?
Remember before Sven came along England were in real danger of NOT
MAKING Wc '02.
And better to have a one trick pony like Beckham than a no trick pony
like Lampard.
Indeed, but Lampard's failure at this WC can be attributed in large part
to SGE playing him in a much deeper role than Chelsea do.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?

So, which countries have been able to do that?

Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)

Any other contenders?

So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?

Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.

Samuli Saarelma
anders t
2006-07-03 13:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
Sweden wasn't that far away, and better than all the Euros you mention.
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 13:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by anders t
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
Sweden wasn't that far away, and better than all the Euros you mention.
Hmm, they didn't make QF this time. So, we can compare them to the
other Euros that have one glitch and see how far they went when they
were not eliminated before QFs. Of those Germany made it to final last
WC and possibly this time too. France also possibly makes it to the
final. Portugal was in EC final and has a chance to WC final this time.
Sweden got eliminated in QFs both times. So, I wouldn't put Sweden
better than these. Why you think, Sweden's record is better?

Samuli Saarelma
anders t
2006-07-03 13:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Why you think, Sweden's record is better?
Because Sweden went to the second round in all three. That definition is as
good as any, but you can make your own, naturally.

Also, in those 2nd rounds, Sweden lost on PKs in one, in OT in one, and
against a strong, but still FIFA supported home team in the third.
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 13:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.
Samuli Saarelma
Not the case. What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies? And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.

William Clark
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-03 13:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.
Samuli Saarelma
Not the case. What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies? And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
William Clark
Strengths like Pony-tail boy giving up a 40 yarder in 02, like Lampard
(or was it Gerrard) throwing away the game against France in 04, the
defense at the end of the Sweden game, and all those missed penalties.

Hypocrites. If SGE were English you'd have knighted him by now.
Benny
2006-07-03 15:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Strengths like Pony-tail boy giving up a 40 yarder in 02, like Lampard
(or was it Gerrard) throwing away the game against France in 04, the
defense at the end of the Sweden game, and all those missed penalties.
Hypocrites. If SGE were English you'd have knighted him by now.
If he was English he would have been sacked in 2002. He's been give more
leeway precisely because he's a foreigner.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
anders t
2006-07-03 18:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
If he was English he would have been sacked in 2002. He's been give more
leeway precisely because he's a foreigner.
He's been given leeway because he beat your incompetent FA at the
negotiaton table.
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
Benny
2006-07-03 18:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
If he was English he would have been sacked in 2002. He's been give more
leeway precisely because he's a foreigner.
He's been given leeway because he beat your incompetent FA at the
negotiaton table.
True.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-03 13:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.
Samuli Saarelma
Not the case. What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies? And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
William Clark
Strengths like Pony-tail boy giving up a 40 yarder in 02, like Lampard
(or was it Gerrard) throwing away the game against France in 04, the
defense at the end of the Sweden game, and all those missed penalties.

Hypocrites. If SGE were English you'd have knighted him by now.
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 13:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.
Samuli Saarelma
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.

England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.

In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-03 18:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
They got as far as they could with the monumental handicap of having an
idiot as national team coach.
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England didn't play as expected, they played even worse than in Euro
2004 and the last World Cup.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard was considered one of the top 5 midfielders in the entire World
before the tournament and still will be, as will Ronaldinho despite his
poor showing.
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
The 2002 World Cup. Against Brazil England had a 1 man advantage and
didn't threaten the goal. A competent coach would have taken advantage
and lead the team to victory. Euro 2004 was just as much of a missed
opportunity.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 19:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
They got as far as they could with the monumental handicap of having an
idiot as national team coach.
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England didn't play as expected, they played even worse than in Euro
2004 and the last World Cup.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard was considered one of the top 5 midfielders in the entire World
before the tournament and still will be, as will Ronaldinho despite his
poor showing.
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
The 2002 World Cup. Against Brazil England had a 1 man advantage and
didn't threaten the goal. A competent coach would have taken advantage
and lead the team to victory. Euro 2004 was just as much of a missed
opportunity.
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
My sentiments precisely.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 21:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
They got as far as they could with the monumental handicap of having an
idiot as national team coach.
Well, as already mentioned in this thread, the idiot got them to QF
three times in a row and that hasn't happened since 60s.
Post by Benny
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England didn't play as expected, they played even worse than in Euro
2004 and the last World Cup.
In the last WC England had two draws and a win in group stage and
finished second behind Sweden and just a point from the third team (the
win was with a slightly dubious penalty on Owen). This time they had
two wins and a draw and won their group. Both times the road ended in
QFs. In EC they had two wins and a loss (lost to the only good team in
the group France) and then made it to QF where they lost on penalties
to Portugal. In my opinion these are pretty much the same if not worse
than this time. So, in this light, the result from this WC was just as
expected.

Ok, what did you expect from England? Please don't say that you
expected them to win, because Robbie and RED DEVIL will put you in
their killfile for mentioning such a taboo.
Post by Benny
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard was considered one of the top 5 midfielders in the entire World
before the tournament and still will be, as will Ronaldinho despite his
poor showing.
Yes? You didn't answer the question. What does bad tactics have
anything do with Lampard's finishing or penalty shooting? In my
opinion, nothing, it's all about his personal talent. Same goes with
Ronaldinho, although he didn't have nowhere near as many chances of
scoring as Lampard.
Post by Benny
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
The 2002 World Cup. Against Brazil England had a 1 man advantage and
didn't threaten the goal. A competent coach would have taken advantage
and lead the team to victory. Euro 2004 was just as much of a missed
opportunity.
In 2002, the opponent was Brazil, who ended up winning the tournament.
Not that easy to play against, don't you think? In 2004, it was the
home nation that won England.

I repeat the question, what result of these three tournaments would
have reflected the English players' talent better than what they got?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-03 22:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Well, as already mentioned in this thread, the idiot got them to QF
three times in a row and that hasn't happened since 60s.
And as has already been mentioned and is clear to anyone who follows
European football, England have a very, very talented squad. 3 QFs is no
achievement. He was a useless, longball merchant in Serie A and has been
equally as useless as England coach.
In the last WC England had two draws and a win in group stage and
finished second behind Sweden and just a point from the third team (the
win was with a slightly dubious penalty on Owen). This time they had
two wins and a draw and won their group.
Against shite teams like Paraguay and Trinidad & Tobago.
Both times the road ended in
QFs. In EC they had two wins and a loss (lost to the only good team in
the group France) and then made it to QF where they lost on penalties
to Portugal. In my opinion these are pretty much the same if not worse
than this time. So, in this light, the result from this WC was just as
expected.
That is only true because many already knew what a handicap SGE was.
Ok, what did you expect from England? Please don't say that you
expected them to win, because Robbie and RED DEVIL will put you in
their killfile for mentioning such a taboo.
Too late because they were in my killfile first. What I expected England
to do to against a weakened Portugal team under SGE? Lose. What I expect
England would do with a competent coach against a weakened Portugal
team? Give them a thorough pasting.
Yes? You didn't answer the question. What does bad tactics have
anything do with Lampard's finishing or penalty shooting? In my
opinion, nothing, it's all about his personal talent. Same goes with
Ronaldinho, although he didn't have nowhere near as many chances of
scoring as Lampard.
Ronaldinho didn't even get forward as much as Lampard did. Good coaches
INSPIRE confidence, bad coaches, like SGE, inspire fear.
In 2002, the opponent was Brazil, who ended up winning the tournament.
Not that easy to play against, don't you think?
11 vs 10. I say that's even.
In 2004, it was the
home nation that won England.
A home nation who were beaten twice by Greece.
I repeat the question, what result of these three tournaments would
have reflected the English players' talent better than what they got?
I have already told you, winning the 2002 World Cup.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-04 08:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Well, as already mentioned in this thread, the idiot got them to QF
three times in a row and that hasn't happened since 60s.
And as has already been mentioned and is clear to anyone who follows
European football, England have a very, very talented squad.
They have decent defence and midfield, but lack in the offence
especially with Owen and Rooney recovering from injuries. On top of
that Rooney was/is a hot head who got himself sent off. I hope you are
not putting the blame on SGE for the injuries or Rooney's card. I think
the results show this lack of offensive power. Of England's 6 goals
only one was scored by a striker. No, I don't think England had the
same quality of players as other semi finalists, except maybe Portugal
and they got a draw with them. And after that Portugal had clearly a
better goal keeper than England. How many English goalkeepers there are
in PL anyway? Not many.
Post by Benny
3 QFs is no
achievement. He was a useless, longball merchant in Serie A and has been
equally as useless as England coach.
England's record so far is one win (at home) and one semi final spot.
QFs is pretty much where the team belongs. Of course it could be
possible to get such streaks of luck as Denmark 1992 and Greece 2004,
but you can't count on that.
Post by Benny
In the last WC England had two draws and a win in group stage and
finished second behind Sweden and just a point from the third team (the
win was with a slightly dubious penalty on Owen). This time they had
two wins and a draw and won their group.
Against shite teams like Paraguay and Trinidad & Tobago.
Yes? Last time the win was against the shite team of Argentina.
Post by Benny
Both times the road ended in
QFs. In EC they had two wins and a loss (lost to the only good team in
the group France) and then made it to QF where they lost on penalties
to Portugal. In my opinion these are pretty much the same if not worse
than this time. So, in this light, the result from this WC was just as
expected.
That is only true because many already knew what a handicap SGE was.
Well, now it goes to subjective speculation. In my opinion, with or
without SGE reaching QF was pretty much what I expected from England.
And that's without the hindsight that they would end up with
half-crippled Portugal in QFs. Getting weakened Portugal was lucky and
that was compensated by bad luck of getting one guy sent off. I think
that against any other quarterfinalist except maybe Ukraine, England
would have lost outright. And that's with or without SGE.
Post by Benny
Ok, what did you expect from England? Please don't say that you
expected them to win, because Robbie and RED DEVIL will put you in
their killfile for mentioning such a taboo.
Too late because they were in my killfile first. What I expected England
to do to against a weakened Portugal team under SGE? Lose. What I expect
England would do with a competent coach against a weakened Portugal
team? Give them a thorough pasting.
No, I meant, what did you expect from England before the tournament (if
there had been no SGE)? At that point you didn't know that they would
be playing weakened Portugal in QF, but could have instead be facing
for instance Holland or Argentina.
Post by Benny
Yes? You didn't answer the question. What does bad tactics have
anything do with Lampard's finishing or penalty shooting? In my
opinion, nothing, it's all about his personal talent. Same goes with
Ronaldinho, although he didn't have nowhere near as many chances of
scoring as Lampard.
Ronaldinho didn't even get forward as much as Lampard did. Good coaches
INSPIRE confidence, bad coaches, like SGE, inspire fear.
So are you now saying that Lampard didn't score from all his chances
and from the penalty spot because he feared Sven?
Post by Benny
In 2002, the opponent was Brazil, who ended up winning the tournament.
Not that easy to play against, don't you think?
11 vs 10. I say that's even.
At that point Brazil was already leading 2-1. So, yes from that point
on, it was even 0-0.
Post by Benny
In 2004, it was the
home nation that won England.
A home nation who were beaten twice by Greece.
So?
Post by Benny
I repeat the question, what result of these three tournaments would
have reflected the English players' talent better than what they got?
I have already told you, winning the 2002 World Cup.
Well, then I have to disagree with you. They played one good game in
the tournament (win against Denmark) and went out against the champions
Brazil. But I don't think, there's no point of continuing this, since
we disagree about the talent level of English players. Thanks for your
opinion anyway.


Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-04 16:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
They have decent defence and midfield, but lack in the offence
Decent? It's the best defence in the World and the ONLY team on the
planet with two better attacking midfielders than Gerrard and Lampard is
Brazil.
especially with Owen and Rooney recovering from injuries. On top of
that Rooney was/is a hot head who got himself sent off. I hope you are
not putting the blame on SGE for the injuries or Rooney's card. I think
the results show this lack of offensive power. Of England's 6 goals
only one was scored by a striker. No, I don't think England had the
same quality of players as other semi finalists, except maybe Portugal
and they got a draw with them. And after that Portugal had clearly a
better goal keeper than England.
Ricardo is as big a joke as Barthez, there's a reason he was dropped by
Sporting early in the season.
How many English goalkeepers there are
in PL anyway? Not many.
We know.
England's record so far is one win (at home) and one semi final spot.
QFs is pretty much where the team belongs. Of course it could be
possible to get such streaks of luck as Denmark 1992 and Greece 2004,
but you can't count on that.
If England 'belong' in the QFs then so do Brazil.
Yes? Last time the win was against the shite team of Argentina.
Argentina weren't shite. It was a strong group.
Well, now it goes to subjective speculation. In my opinion, with or
without SGE reaching QF was pretty much what I expected from England.
And that's without the hindsight that they would end up with
half-crippled Portugal in QFs. Getting weakened Portugal was lucky and
that was compensated by bad luck of getting one guy sent off. I think
that against any other quarterfinalist except maybe Ukraine, England
would have lost outright. And that's with or without SGE.
You clearly don't follow club football closely enough to have an
informed opinion so resort to the same age old cliches about English
footballers.
No, I meant, what did you expect from England before the tournament (if
there had been no SGE)? At that point you didn't know that they would
be playing weakened Portugal in QF, but could have instead be facing
for instance Holland or Argentina.
With Rooney 100% fit and a good coach as semi-final place would have
been a realistic aim. Even with a half fit Rooney, Portugal missing Deco
should have been a cakewalk.
So are you now saying that Lampard didn't score from all his chances
and from the penalty spot because he feared Sven?
I said good coaches inspire confidence, bad coaches inspire fear.
Post by Benny
A home nation who were beaten twice by Greece.
So?
So Portugal aren't are great side.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
anders t
2006-07-04 18:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
They have decent defence and midfield, but lack in the offence
Decent? It's the best defence in the World and the ONLY team on the
planet with two better attacking midfielders than Gerrard and Lampard is
Brazil.
And neither Brazil nor England get any uptime in the semifinals.
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
Benny
2006-07-05 03:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
They have decent defence and midfield, but lack in the offence
Decent? It's the best defence in the World and the ONLY team on the
planet with two better attacking midfielders than Gerrard and Lampard is
Brazil.
And neither Brazil nor England get any uptime in the semifinals.
Correct.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-03 20:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I know there are those who will say that England won a very high
percentage of their games under SGE, but most of those games are against
teams little better than Jamaica. The fact remains that under SGE
England failed miserably at two World Cups, and in the intervening
European Cup, and those are the only real measure of success.
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
Well, of course you can argue that QFs mean nothing, it's either a
trophy or you are a loser. I don't think that's very fair. On top level
football, the differences between teams are small.On a good day, any of
the remaining semifinalists can win the remaining two matches. However,
only one will. Does that make the rest of them rubbish? Not in my
opinion.
Samuli Saarelma
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 22:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.

But ok, fine. Let's say that England was better than all of the other
teams in the group. So what? England _was_ the seeded team so that's
quite expected.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?


Samuli Saarelma
Post by William A. T. Clark
William Clark
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-04 13:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.
It was certainly better than England's set piece defence.
Post by s***@hut.fi
But ok, fine. Let's say that England was better than all of the other
teams in the group. So what? England _was_ the seeded team so that's
quite expected.
Exactly. And once out of the group, they had just about the easiest path
to the SF - no Italy, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, or France.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards? Lampard's WC was a
disaster, and it is emblematic of what SGE produced from players of
known ability.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF; each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-04 13:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?

In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.

Historically QF has been pretty much England's level. There was nothing
special in the current team that would have suggested different. They
had good midfield, but were weak in attack.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.
It was certainly better than England's set piece defence.
Duh, when a team scores from set pieces, it's quite obvious that the
offence has been better than the defence.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.

I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.

I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-04 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
You don't follow the club game closely enough to have an informed
opinion.
Historically QF has been pretty much England's level. There was nothing
special in the current team that would have suggested different. They
had good midfield, but were weak in attack.
To say England have a good midfield is like saying Italy have a good
goalkeeper.
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
Ask yourself the same question about Ronaldinho and you have the exact
same answer, the coaches are to blame.
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
Lampard's technical ability isn't in question, he missed chances he
normally buries and that's down to confidence.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
England have rarely impressed under his reign, especially against strong
opposition. One great performance against Germany (clearly a fluke) is
all he has going for him.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-04 16:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
You don't follow the club game closely enough to have an informed
opinion.
You don't follow me closely enough to have an informed opinion about my
football watching.
Post by Benny
Historically QF has been pretty much England's level. There was nothing
special in the current team that would have suggested different. They
had good midfield, but were weak in attack.
To say England have a good midfield is like saying Italy have a good
goalkeeper.
Your point?
Post by Benny
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
Ask yourself the same question about Ronaldinho and you have the exact
same answer, the coaches are to blame.
As I wrote before, Ronaldinho didn't have that many chances to score in
this world cup. Now _that_ could be coaches fault (he chose wrong
tactical system that didn't create enough chances). But those chances
that he had (say, the freekicks near the box) he missed. That's not
coaches fault. That's his own fault. And the same applies to Lampard.
If he hadn't had 20+ chances to shoot, fine, that would have been
team's and coach's fault. But he did and he still didn't score. That's
not coach's fault. That's player's own fault. He had to score from the
penalty and he didn't. Again, not coach's fault, but player's.

Could you tell me, when in your opinion it's player's fault? When
Gerard donated a goal to France in 2004 EC, was that also SGE's fault?
Did he shout from the touchline:"Pass it back to the keeper, it's
safe"?
Post by Benny
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
Lampard's technical ability isn't in question, he missed chances he
normally buries and that's down to confidence.
Again, it's not coach's fault that player start suddenly choking when
it matters the most.Tell me what Mourinho could have done to Lampard's
finishing or his penalty shooting?
Post by Benny
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
England have rarely impressed under his reign, especially against strong
opposition. One great performance against Germany (clearly a fluke) is
all he has going for him.
As I wrote before, England rarely impresses anyway. They have one WC
win when they were the host and then one time they were in semis.
Ending up in the QF is pretty much what they are expected. In 1994 they
didn't even qualify into the tournament. Now, _that_ could be called
miserable.

BTW, didn't England beat Argentina some time before WC? Wasn't that
good performance against strong opposition?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-04 17:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
You don't follow me closely enough to have an informed opinion about my
football watching.
I don't need to.
Post by Benny
To say England have a good midfield is like saying Italy have a good
goalkeeper.
Your point?
The point, which you still haven't got, is that this is no ordinary
England team.
As I wrote before, Ronaldinho didn't have that many chances to score in
this world cup. Now _that_ could be coaches fault (he chose wrong
tactical system that didn't create enough chances). But those chances
that he had (say, the freekicks near the box) he missed. That's not
coaches fault. That's his own fault. And the same applies to Lampard.
If he hadn't had 20+ chances to shoot, fine, that would have been
team's and coach's fault. But he did and he still didn't score. That's
not coach's fault. That's player's own fault. He had to score from the
penalty and he didn't. Again, not coach's fault, but player's.
Could you tell me, when in your opinion it's player's fault? When
Gerard donated a goal to France in 2004 EC, was that also SGE's fault?
Did he shout from the touchline:"Pass it back to the keeper, it's
safe"?
If Lampard was the ONLY England player who didn't perform you would have
a case, none of them performed, from the goalkeeper, who was a nervous
wreck, to Ferdinand who was continually hitting longballs out of
defence, something he simply does not do at Man United, Lampard,
Gerrard, Cole, Rooney etc, etc.
Again, it's not coach's fault that player start suddenly choking when
it matters the most.
When everyone doesn't perform to their usual levels it IS the coaches
fault.
Tell me what Mourinho could have done to Lampard's
finishing or his penalty shooting?
It's not a problem when he plays for Chelsea.
BTW, didn't England beat Argentina some time before WC? Wasn't that
good performance against strong opposition?
Friendlies are meaningless.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 08:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
You don't follow me closely enough to have an informed opinion about my
football watching.
I don't need to.
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you shouldn't try to make comments on how much
I follow club football.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
To say England have a good midfield is like saying Italy have a good
goalkeeper.
Your point?
The point, which you still haven't got, is that this is no ordinary
England team.
What's so special about it?
Post by Benny
As I wrote before, Ronaldinho didn't have that many chances to score in
this world cup. Now _that_ could be coaches fault (he chose wrong
tactical system that didn't create enough chances). But those chances
that he had (say, the freekicks near the box) he missed. That's not
coaches fault. That's his own fault. And the same applies to Lampard.
If he hadn't had 20+ chances to shoot, fine, that would have been
team's and coach's fault. But he did and he still didn't score. That's
not coach's fault. That's player's own fault. He had to score from the
penalty and he didn't. Again, not coach's fault, but player's.
Could you tell me, when in your opinion it's player's fault? When
Gerard donated a goal to France in 2004 EC, was that also SGE's fault?
Did he shout from the touchline:"Pass it back to the keeper, it's
safe"?
If Lampard was the ONLY England player who didn't perform you would have
a case, none of them performed, from the goalkeeper, who was a nervous
wreck, to Ferdinand who was continually hitting longballs out of
defence, something he simply does not do at Man United, Lampard,
Gerrard, Cole, Rooney etc, etc.
No. If the system didn't work, coach was to be blamed. If there were
wrong players in the squad, coach was to be blamed. If wrong
substitutes were made, coach was to be blamed. If the players didn't
play well _individually_, that's players' fault. There is very little
what the coach can do to Lampard to make him score from open chances.
There is very little the coach can do to make more than 1 out of 4
penalty takers to score except practice penalties in training and
apparently they had done exactly that.

Gerrard was England's best scorer. Which Cole you are referring? Joe
Cole scored a great goal and played well in general. Rooney had just
recovered from an injury. He's biggest mistake was to be sent off. You
tell me, what the coach can do to prevent that? How does Sven make the
goalkeeper a nervous wreck?
Post by Benny
Again, it's not coach's fault that player start suddenly choking when
it matters the most.
When everyone doesn't perform to their usual levels it IS the coaches
fault.
First, it wasn't everyone. Defensively England played ok against
Portugal. In the whole tournament they conceded 2 set piece goals and
that was it. Hargreaves was good against Portugal. Beckham played at
his normal level = good freekicks+crosses and that's it. Secondly,
coach chooses the system and the players. The players try to play
according to the system. That's their responsibilty. If the system is
wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes, that's coaches
fault. If the system still creates chances for players to score, but
they still don't, that's players' fault. So, yes, you can blame Sven
for playing 4-5-1 instead of something else, but not for Lampard
shooting the ball to row Z from 6 meters of the goal.
Post by Benny
Tell me what Mourinho could have done to Lampard's
finishing or his penalty shooting?
It's not a problem when he plays for Chelsea.
You didn't answer the question. Ok, let me reformulate the question.
What did Eriksson do to Lampard to make him miss all his chances and to
top it up with a poor penalty?
Post by Benny
BTW, didn't England beat Argentina some time before WC? Wasn't that
good performance against strong opposition?
Friendlies are meaningless.
Well, I think both teams did their best in the game.

You have nothing to say about 1994? Not a miserable failure?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-05 12:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you shouldn't try to make comments on how much
I follow club football.
It's clear you don't follow the game closely otherwise you wouldn't make
such ridiculous comments.
What's so special about it?
See above, you don't follow club football otherwise it would be obvious
what's special about the squad.
No. If the system didn't work, coach was to be blamed. If there were
wrong players in the squad, coach was to be blamed. If wrong
substitutes were made, coach was to be blamed. If the players didn't
play well _individually_, that's players' fault. There is very little
what the coach can do to Lampard to make him score from open chances.
There is very little the coach can do to make more than 1 out of 4
penalty takers to score except practice penalties in training and
apparently they had done exactly that.
Gerrard was England's best scorer. Which Cole you are referring? Joe
Cole scored a great goal and played well in general. Rooney had just
recovered from an injury. He's biggest mistake was to be sent off. You
tell me, what the coach can do to prevent that? How does Sven make the
goalkeeper a nervous wreck?
No one performed to anywhere near their usual levels, even the defence
made basic errors against the Swedes.
First, it wasn't everyone. Defensively England played ok against
Portugal. In the whole tournament they conceded 2 set piece goals and
that was it. Hargreaves was good against Portugal. Beckham played at
his normal level = good freekicks+crosses and that's it. Secondly,
coach chooses the system and the players. The players try to play
according to the system. That's their responsibilty. If the system is
wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes, that's coaches
fault.
Which was the case.
If the system still creates chances for players to score, but
they still don't, that's players' fault. So, yes, you can blame Sven
for playing 4-5-1 instead of something else, but not for Lampard
shooting the ball to row Z from 6 meters of the goal.
You didn't answer the question. Ok, let me reformulate the question.
What did Eriksson do to Lampard to make him miss all his chances and to
top it up with a poor penalty?
Same thing he failed to do with most of the players who under performed,
inspire confidence.
You have nothing to say about 1994? Not a miserable failure?
I have already commented about that period in the past, the players
weren't good enough. This is obvious to anyone who follows club football
but not obvious to fly by nighters that turn up during the World Cup and
make judgements on what happens in 4 weeks every 4 years.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-05 12:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you shouldn't try to make comments on how much
I follow club football.
It's clear you don't follow the game closely otherwise you wouldn't make
such ridiculous comments.
What's so special about it?
See above, you don't follow club football otherwise it would be obvious
what's special about the squad.
No. If the system didn't work, coach was to be blamed. If there were
wrong players in the squad, coach was to be blamed. If wrong
substitutes were made, coach was to be blamed. If the players didn't
play well _individually_, that's players' fault. There is very little
what the coach can do to Lampard to make him score from open chances.
There is very little the coach can do to make more than 1 out of 4
penalty takers to score except practice penalties in training and
apparently they had done exactly that.
Gerrard was England's best scorer. Which Cole you are referring? Joe
Cole scored a great goal and played well in general. Rooney had just
recovered from an injury. He's biggest mistake was to be sent off. You
tell me, what the coach can do to prevent that? How does Sven make the
goalkeeper a nervous wreck?
No one performed to anywhere near their usual levels, even the defence
made basic errors against the Swedes.
First, it wasn't everyone. Defensively England played ok against
Portugal. In the whole tournament they conceded 2 set piece goals and
that was it. Hargreaves was good against Portugal. Beckham played at
his normal level = good freekicks+crosses and that's it. Secondly,
coach chooses the system and the players. The players try to play
according to the system. That's their responsibilty. If the system is
wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes, that's coaches
fault.
Which was the case.
If the system still creates chances for players to score, but
they still don't, that's players' fault. So, yes, you can blame Sven
for playing 4-5-1 instead of something else, but not for Lampard
shooting the ball to row Z from 6 meters of the goal.
You didn't answer the question. Ok, let me reformulate the question.
What did Eriksson do to Lampard to make him miss all his chances and to
top it up with a poor penalty?
Same thing he failed to do with most of the players who under performed,
inspire confidence.
You have nothing to say about 1994? Not a miserable failure?
I have already commented about that period in the past, the players
weren't good enough. This is obvious to anyone who follows club football
but not obvious to fly by nighters that turn up during the World Cup and
make judgements on what happens in 4 weeks every 4 years.
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
I'm not sure there is any point extending this discussion any further
with someone who so obtusely refuses to see the point. I would go and do
something more enjoyable, if I were you.

William Clark
Benny
2006-07-06 00:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
I'm not sure there is any point extending this discussion any further
with someone who so obtusely refuses to see the point. I would go and do
something more enjoyable, if I were you.
What makes you think I'm not enjoying myself?

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-06 09:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
I'm not sure there is any point extending this discussion any further
with someone who so obtusely refuses to see the point.
Pot, meet kettle. But yes, I agree, there isn't much point of
continuing this. It's pretty clear that nothing new will come out from
this. Finally, I have to say that despite the above comment you were
clearly the less arrogant discussion partner than Benny. So, thank you
for that.

Samuli Saarelma
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-06 13:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I'm not sure there is any point extending this discussion any further
with someone who so obtusely refuses to see the point.
Pot, meet kettle. But yes, I agree, there isn't much point of
continuing this. It's pretty clear that nothing new will come out from
this. Finally, I have to say that despite the above comment you were
clearly the less arrogant discussion partner than Benny. So, thank you
for that.
Samuli Saarelma
Well, thank you, too. We can agree to differ in a civilized fashion.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 15:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you shouldn't try to make comments on how much
I follow club football.
It's clear you don't follow the game closely otherwise you wouldn't make
such ridiculous comments.
Which ridiculous comments? Didn't we already agree that England's level
of talent was about the same as maybe 6 countries in the world? Then QF
is not that bad.
Post by Benny
What's so special about it?
See above, you don't follow club football otherwise it would be obvious
what's special about the squad.
English club football? Yes, I follow it. I remember for instance that
this season Arsenal was the best English club in Europe. When they
played Real Madrid, they didn't have a single English player on the
pitch. English club teams doing well is not equivalent of English
player material being brilliant.
Post by Benny
No. If the system didn't work, coach was to be blamed. If there were
wrong players in the squad, coach was to be blamed. If wrong
substitutes were made, coach was to be blamed. If the players didn't
play well _individually_, that's players' fault. There is very little
what the coach can do to Lampard to make him score from open chances.
There is very little the coach can do to make more than 1 out of 4
penalty takers to score except practice penalties in training and
apparently they had done exactly that.
Gerrard was England's best scorer. Which Cole you are referring? Joe
Cole scored a great goal and played well in general. Rooney had just
recovered from an injury. He's biggest mistake was to be sent off. You
tell me, what the coach can do to prevent that? How does Sven make the
goalkeeper a nervous wreck?
No one performed to anywhere near their usual levels, even the defence
made basic errors against the Swedes.
Right, so now you _do_ look at their performance in other games than
against the top teams. Earlier you discounted them as meaningless.

See below about players performing at their usual level.
Post by Benny
First, it wasn't everyone. Defensively England played ok against
Portugal. In the whole tournament they conceded 2 set piece goals and
that was it. Hargreaves was good against Portugal. Beckham played at
his normal level = good freekicks+crosses and that's it. Secondly,
coach chooses the system and the players. The players try to play
according to the system. That's their responsibilty. If the system is
wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes, that's coaches
fault.
Which was the case.
Your point?
Post by Benny
If the system still creates chances for players to score, but
they still don't, that's players' fault. So, yes, you can blame Sven
for playing 4-5-1 instead of something else, but not for Lampard
shooting the ball to row Z from 6 meters of the goal.
You didn't answer the question. Ok, let me reformulate the question.
What did Eriksson do to Lampard to make him miss all his chances and to
top it up with a poor penalty?
Same thing he failed to do with most of the players who under performed,
inspire confidence.
So, now even the individual performance of the players is coach's
responsibility. What is left to the players? Lift the trophy?
Post by Benny
You have nothing to say about 1994? Not a miserable failure?
I have already commented about that period in the past, the players
weren't good enough.
What do you mean "already commented"? In this discussion you haven't
and that's why I asked it. BTW, England made it to the semis of EC in
1996 and lost the place in the final by penalties. Did the player
material change so much between?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-05 19:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Which ridiculous comments? Didn't we already agree that England's level
of talent was about the same as maybe 6 countries in the world? Then QF
is not that bad.
'We' didn't agree anything.
English club football? Yes, I follow it. I remember for instance that
this season Arsenal was the best English club in Europe. When they
played Real Madrid, they didn't have a single English player on the
pitch. English club teams doing well is not equivalent of English
player material being brilliant.
Go back a season.
Right, so now you _do_ look at their performance in other games than
against the top teams. Earlier you discounted them as meaningless.
I discounted friendlies as meaningless.
See below about players performing at their usual level.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
First, it wasn't everyone. Defensively England played ok against
Portugal. In the whole tournament they conceded 2 set piece goals and
that was it. Hargreaves was good against Portugal. Beckham played at
his normal level = good freekicks+crosses and that's it. Secondly,
coach chooses the system and the players. The players try to play
according to the system. That's their responsibilty. If the system is
wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes, that's coaches
fault.
Which was the case.
Your point?
If the system is wrong and it puts players in wrong positions, yes,
that's coaches fault.
So you're blaming the coach.
So, now even the individual performance of the players is coach's
responsibility.
The entire team didn't play well, that is obviously the coaches fault.
What do you mean "already commented"? In this discussion you haven't
and that's why I asked it.
The fact that you're not familiar with the squads in 1992 and 1994
speaks for itself. You're a fly by nighter and make judgements based on
4 weeks every 4 years.
BTW, England made it to the semis of EC in
1996 and lost the place in the final by penalties. Did the player
material change so much between?
Yes.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-05 01:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have
beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
No, you missed my point. You admit that England had an easy QF opponent,
which is what I have been arguing all along. That being the case,
England should clearly have advanced, but they continued to play
sterile, defence-oriented, football, with a lone striker up front in
almost totally unsupported isolation. Rooney lost his cool in no small
part through the sheer frustration of being put in a ridiculous no-win
situation, getting the crap kicked out of him by two or three defenders.
A coaching decision to put him there.

If England had faced a truly world-class team in the QFs, played well,
but lost, then so be it. They (and the coach) would have done their best
but come up short against a better side. That was absolutely not the
case here.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?
England were seeded, were they not? That makes it a pretty wide view, I
think.
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
Certainly not by team play and tactics. And individually they were not
that good at WC '06, mostly because their abilities were not properly
utilized by a limited coach. English players have limitations, in
general, compared to those from other countries, but they also have
certain strengths that others don't have. SGE never recognized or used
those strengths.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Historically QF has been pretty much England's level. There was nothing
special in the current team that would have suggested different. They
had good midfield, but were weak in attack.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.
It was certainly better than England's set piece defence.
Duh, when a team scores from set pieces, it's quite obvious that the
offence has been better than the defence.
"Better" what? Better, talentwise, or better organized, i.e. coached?
Clearly the latter in this case. My point entirely.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but
because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this
team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.
No, don't play that silly game with me. I am answering your question. At
Chelsea Lampard is effective pushing forward in company with several
talented forwards, all pressuring the defence and so creating openings.
Here he was asked to come forward from deep, on rare occasions, almost
invariably alone, and forced to shoot with the defence on top of him,
and he's not very good at that, it appears. So, Lampard's form and
performance were poor, but the way SGE used him was also ridiculous.
Post by s***@hut.fi
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
If SGE had coached the side properly, Lampard's apparent poor form would
not have been an issue that affected the outcomes of games. If others
had scored or created chances, for sure he would eventually have been
able to relax and start scoring himself.
Post by s***@hut.fi
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
In England's case it might not be the best, but it was certainly better
than the Portugal XI they played in the QF. And you know, the real art
of coaching (apart from picking the right players to begin with - SGE
gets an "F" there), is getting the best out of players by putting them
into a system that maximizes what talents they have. Clearly SGE's
defensive 4-5-1 straightjacket did not do this.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Yes, you did, you wrote "What result would have better reflected the
talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x QF and 1 x SF ?" As
if this is a formula that reflects success. I say that is silly -
success should be measured by how you do against the teams you have to
play, and those may be either strong or weak. England in WC '06 had a
path that pitted them against weaker teams, and they failed to put any
of them away convincingly, and then lost a game they had no business
losing. To all who watched those games, this team showed a stifling lack
of ambition and expression, and were locked in a tactical scheme that
guaranteed it would be hard for them to score.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
No, I'm not. He lost lamely to Brazil in WC '02, and to Portugal in EC
'04. In fact name me a critical BIG game that he won - they are few and
far between. He made his reputation by one game against Germany, and a
bunch of wins against second rate teams and part-timers. The fact is
that a) Rooney should not have been left as vulnerable (given his
brittle temperament) as he was, and b) england should never have had to
shoot penalties against Portugal.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 10:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
Post by William A. T. Clark
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should have
beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable failure" on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got as far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
No, you missed my point. You admit that England had an easy QF opponent,
which is what I have been arguing all along.
Yes, England was lucky with the QF opponent. On the other hand, they
were unlucky to get a man sent off. Pretty much balances the luck
factor.
Post by William A. T. Clark
That being the case,
England should clearly have advanced, but they continued to play
sterile, defence-oriented, football, with a lone striker up front in
almost totally unsupported isolation. Rooney lost his cool in no small
part through the sheer frustration of being put in a ridiculous no-win
situation, getting the crap kicked out of him by two or three defenders.
A coaching decision to put him there.
Right. Rooney has to take no responsibility of his stupidity, but
instead all goas to the coach. Did Rooney _himself_ say that it was
those no-win situations that put him over the edge?
Post by William A. T. Clark
If England had faced a truly world-class team in the QFs, played well,
but lost, then so be it. They (and the coach) would have done their best
but come up short against a better side. That was absolutely not the
case here.
So, let me get this straight, if before WC someone would have said that
England goes out in the QF, you would have agreed that it is pretty
accurate level of their skill?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than one of
the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?
England were seeded, were they not? That makes it a pretty wide view, I
think.
Yes seeded, which means top 8. And that's where they made it just like
the rest of the seeded teams except for Spain. But is "probably making
it to top-8" same as "being a pre-tournament fancy"?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
Certainly not by team play and tactics. And individually they were not
that good at WC '06, mostly because their abilities were not properly
utilized by a limited coach. English players have limitations, in
general, compared to those from other countries, but they also have
certain strengths that others don't have. SGE never recognized or used
those strengths.
What are those strenths? Apparently at least not scoring from the
penalty spot. Or in the case of Lampard, scoring from countless
chances.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.
It was certainly better than England's set piece defence.
Duh, when a team scores from set pieces, it's quite obvious that the
offence has been better than the defence.
"Better" what? Better, talentwise, or better organized, i.e. coached?
Clearly the latter in this case. My point entirely.
Better at getting the ball in the net. Part of it is coaching, part
talent. Beckham was the front man in Sweden's first goal. He didn't
mark his man and the ball ended in the back of the net.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad), but
because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of this
team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World footballer of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.
No, don't play that silly game with me. I am answering your question. At
Chelsea Lampard is effective pushing forward in company with several
talented forwards, all pressuring the defence and so creating openings.
Here he was asked to come forward from deep, on rare occasions, almost
invariably alone, and forced to shoot with the defence on top of him,
and he's not very good at that, it appears.
He had open chances, he had pressured chances, he had everything. Just
couldn't deliver.
Post by William A. T. Clark
So, Lampard's form and
performance were poor, but the way SGE used him was also ridiculous.
Good. So, not _all_ of England's "miserable failure" was SGE's fault?
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
If SGE had coached the side properly, Lampard's apparent poor form would
not have been an issue that affected the outcomes of games. If others
had scored or created chances, for sure he would eventually have been
able to relax and start scoring himself.
Maybe SGE trusted that his trump card could deliver if enough chances
were created for him. Many successful teams were built around one
player (France-Zidane, Italy-Totti, Germany-Ballack,
Argentina-Riquelme). SGE probably hoped that Lampard could be his man.
He couldn't.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
In England's case it might not be the best, but it was certainly better
than the Portugal XI they played in the QF. And you know, the real art
of coaching (apart from picking the right players to begin with - SGE
gets an "F" there),
Ok, let's look at this first. Yes, it can be argued that SGE could have
taken an extra striker. But when he would have been put on the pitch?
Shouldn't any coach play Rooney and Owen? And what about rest of the
team? Who should have been playing in midfield and defence instead of
those who did?
Post by William A. T. Clark
is getting the best out of players by putting them
into a system that maximizes what talents they have. Clearly SGE's
defensive 4-5-1 straightjacket did not do this.
As I wrote, yes, the coach takes the blame for the system he plays.
This still doesn't take any blame from the technical errors of the
players. Rooney being idiot and getting sent off. Lampard not scoring.
3 out of 4 not shooting a good penalty. Keeper not being able to stop a
single penalty.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me, what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Yes, you did, you wrote "What result would have better reflected the
talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x QF and 1 x SF ?" As
if this is a formula that reflects success.
What formula? Read again what I write. I don't write any formula. I
only ask you, what results should SGE have got so that you wouldn't
have considered him a miserable failure?
Post by William A. T. Clark
I say that is silly -
success should be measured by how you do against the teams you have to
play, and those may be either strong or weak. England in WC '06 had a
path that pitted them against weaker teams, and they failed to put any
of them away convincingly, and then lost a game they had no business
losing. To all who watched those games, this team showed a stifling lack
of ambition and expression, and were locked in a tactical scheme that
guaranteed it would be hard for them to score.
As I wrote, you concentrate too much on one game to judge the success
of a manager who was there for 6 years. In WC '06 England won their
group with two wins and a draw. They went to QF with a win against
Ecuador. And then they lost to Portugal mainly for two reasons. One,
their striker got himself sent off by stupidity, two, they couldn't
score from penalty. Without either one of these, England would have had
a good chance of winning the game. Crouch would have come on the pitch
making the offence stronger and two Portuguese missed the goal totally
in the PKs.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
No, I'm not. He lost lamely to Brazil in WC '02,
Brazil was on its way to the championship. The second goal was clearly
a goalkeeping error that SGE had no power over (ok, he could have
chosen someone else than Seaman, but who?).
Post by William A. T. Clark
and to Portugal in EC '04.
He's star striker got injured in the game. Portugal was playing at
home. Not so easy for the coach.
Post by William A. T. Clark
In fact name me a critical BIG game that he won - they are few and
far between. He made his reputation by one game against Germany, and a
bunch of wins against second rate teams and part-timers.
No, the question is that _should_ England have got any better than 3
QFs with the material they had? In my opinion, no.

The big games that they won, were against Denmark and Argentina in 2002
and Ecuador in 2006.
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact is
that a) Rooney should not have been left as vulnerable (given his
brittle temperament) as he was, and b) england should never have had to
shoot penalties against Portugal.
a) fair enough, but I would not put the whole blame on SGE. Rooney
himself is a thinking human being and not a robot. He has to take some
responsibility of his own actions. And it works the other way too. When
Rooney scored those great goals in EC 04, it was mainly his own
brilliance, not SGE's great thinking.

b) England playing with 10 against 11, going to penalties doesn't look
so bad. Unless they are such hopeless penalty shooters as they were
that night.

Samuli Saarelma
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-05 13:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In article
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should
have
beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable
failure"
on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got
as
far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
No, you missed my point. You admit that England had an easy QF opponent,
which is what I have been arguing all along.
Yes, England was lucky with the QF opponent. On the other hand, they
were unlucky to get a man sent off. Pretty much balances the luck
factor.
Good - some progress, at least.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
That being the case,
England should clearly have advanced, but they continued to play
sterile, defence-oriented, football, with a lone striker up front in
almost totally unsupported isolation. Rooney lost his cool in no small
part through the sheer frustration of being put in a ridiculous no-win
situation, getting the crap kicked out of him by two or three defenders.
A coaching decision to put him there.
Right. Rooney has to take no responsibility of his stupidity, but
instead all goas to the coach. Did Rooney _himself_ say that it was
those no-win situations that put him over the edge?
Rooney has the IQ of a gnat, and of course he is not going to blame SGE
for being sent off. I don't think he is bright enough to figure out how
SGE's absurd formation left him so isolated and exposed.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
If England had faced a truly world-class team in the QFs, played well,
but lost, then so be it. They (and the coach) would have done their best
but come up short against a better side. That was absolutely not the
case here.
So, let me get this straight, if before WC someone would have said that
England goes out in the QF, you would have agreed that it is pretty
accurate level of their skill?
Jeez, just listen for once please!! You CANNOT say ahead of a tournament
what level of progress is acceptable or not, because you do not know who
you will face beyond the group stages. Got that? There are (and I repeat
for the nth time) two points here: 1) England did not have a single
convincing performance in the entire WC, even against such weak teams as
T&T. There is clearly a tactical problem if you cannot put away vastly
inferior teams. 2) England drew Portugal in the QFs, a team that they
should clearly beat, especially with 2 key players missing. That is the
"measure of their skill".
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Tell me which game, for example, in WC '06 did England play
like
anything other than a second tier national team, rather than
one of
the
pre-tournament fancies?
Be careful. If you mention in this group that someone actually
thought
England as a pre-tournament fancy, you will soon be crucified
Robbie
and RED DEVIL. I'm already in their killfile, so I'm safe.
Red Devil is simply obsessed with protecting his beloved ManU players
from criticism. Again, the issue is not how far they got, but how they
played given the level of their opposition.
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?
England were seeded, were they not? That makes it a pretty wide view, I
think.
Yes seeded, which means top 8. And that's where they made it just like
the rest of the seeded teams except for Spain. But is "probably making
it to top-8" same as "being a pre-tournament fancy"?
Aaaah, semantics. England were certainly as fancied (unreasonably in my
view) as anyone else, given the lack of a really outstanding team in
world football at the moment.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
Certainly not by team play and tactics. And individually they were not
that good at WC '06, mostly because their abilities were not properly
utilized by a limited coach. English players have limitations, in
general, compared to those from other countries, but they also have
certain strengths that others don't have. SGE never recognized or used
those strengths.
What are those strenths? Apparently at least not scoring from the
penalty spot. Or in the case of Lampard, scoring from countless
chances.
Oh, the strengths that, for example, took Liverpool past AC Milan in the
2005 EC Final. Passion and drive, for example, not introverted and
tentative.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
England played pretty much as expected. Against weak opposition
(Paraguay, T&T and Ecuador) they were able to win. Against better
teams
(Sweden and Portugal) they could only get a draw. The lost
penalties
was also very typical for the English NT.
England had Sweden totally beaten, and then let them off the hook
because they could not defend set pieces. Now, what part of the game is
more directly attributable to coaching than set pieces?
Sometimes you get scored against from set pieces, sometimes from open
play. I would believe that Anders has quite a different opinion of
England having Sweden totally beaten and would probably credit the
goals for Sweden's good set piece play.
It was certainly better than England's set piece defence.
Duh, when a team scores from set pieces, it's quite obvious that the
offence has been better than the defence.
"Better" what? Better, talentwise, or better organized, i.e. coached?
Clearly the latter in this case. My point entirely.
Better at getting the ball in the net. Part of it is coaching, part
talent. Beckham was the front man in Sweden's first goal. He didn't
mark his man and the ball ended in the back of the net.
The organization of the defence on those set pieces was a shambles - you
could see panic stations from the moment the kick was awarded. Any coach
makes sure his goalkeeper has charge of the 6-yard box - Robinson
clearly was not in charge on Larsson's goal. That's coaching.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
And not because of the lack of talent (although
we can talk about SGE's ludicrous selections for the squad),
but
because
of naive and negative tactics that took away the strengths of
this
team.
Ok, where was the talent? Lampard (I guess he was considered the
best
English player before the tournament) got more shots than any other
player in WC so far and could not score once. That kind of poor
finishing has nothing to do with tactics.
Lampard has been in the top flight for over three years - runner up for
both European footballer of the Year (2005) and FIFA World
footballer
of
the Year (2005), among others. He is not chopped liver - that is until
he gets put into SGEs scheme.
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.
No, don't play that silly game with me. I am answering your question. At
Chelsea Lampard is effective pushing forward in company with several
talented forwards, all pressuring the defence and so creating openings.
Here he was asked to come forward from deep, on rare occasions, almost
invariably alone, and forced to shoot with the defence on top of him,
and he's not very good at that, it appears.
He had open chances, he had pressured chances, he had everything. Just
couldn't deliver.
No he did not deliver, but weren't there ten other players on the field
who should have been used in supportive attacking roles? When, for
example, have you ever seen Gerard so hamstrung by a "defensive scheme"?
His game is running forward into space, not sitting back hitting long
balls. It's just nonsense.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
So, Lampard's form and
performance were poor, but the way SGE used him was also ridiculous.
Good. So, not _all_ of England's "miserable failure" was SGE's fault?
The players played poorly, in general, but for the most part up to thier
limits in such an unfamiliar setup. How often do you see 4-5-1 in the
EPL? Never, except when playing away and not to lose, so what makes
anyone think England's players will be comfortable playing that in the
WC, where you have to win? No one but you and SGE, apparently.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
If SGE had coached the side properly, Lampard's apparent poor form would
not have been an issue that affected the outcomes of games. If others
had scored or created chances, for sure he would eventually have been
able to relax and start scoring himself.
Maybe SGE trusted that his trump card could deliver if enough chances
were created for him. Many successful teams were built around one
player (France-Zidane, Italy-Totti, Germany-Ballack,
Argentina-Riquelme). SGE probably hoped that Lampard could be his man.
He couldn't.
He has spent the last five years thinking Beckham was his man, so I
suppose we should be grateful for some progress.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
In England's case it might not be the best, but it was certainly better
than the Portugal XI they played in the QF. And you know, the real art
of coaching (apart from picking the right players to begin with - SGE
gets an "F" there),
Ok, let's look at this first. Yes, it can be argued that SGE could have
taken an extra striker. But when he would have been put on the pitch?
Shouldn't any coach play Rooney and Owen? And what about rest of the
team? Who should have been playing in midfield and defence instead of
those who did?
Yes, he should have played Rooney and Owen together, although Defoe
might have been more effective than Owen. Hargreaves should have been
behind them, rather than a midfield holding role he is not familiar
with. The back four played solidly, apart from those set pieces, so add
Gerard, Lampard, and I suppose Beckham, although Cole was certainly more
effective overall. Use Lennon early on the right, and leave Walcott at
home to take his driving test. But above all, make them all drive
forward relentlessly (heat notwithstanding) in the style of the EPL. If
you lose doing that, at least we have seen the best effort under the
best scheme.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
is getting the best out of players by putting them
into a system that maximizes what talents they have. Clearly SGE's
defensive 4-5-1 straightjacket did not do this.
As I wrote, yes, the coach takes the blame for the system he plays.
This still doesn't take any blame from the technical errors of the
players. Rooney being idiot and getting sent off. Lampard not scoring.
3 out of 4 not shooting a good penalty. Keeper not being able to stop a
single penalty.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion, England got as far as it could with the talent it
had.
As I wrote, they made it to QFs three times in a row and in (at
least)
one of them were eliminated by the champion. Could you tell me,
what
would have been the result that would have reflected the English
players' talent more accurately? 2 WC and 1 EC victories?
Making it to a QF and losing to Brazil is completely different from
getting to the QF and losing to a Portuguese team that is missing two
key players. The issue is not how far they should get based on ranking
going into the tournament, but how far they got given the opposition
they were presented with. They should clearly be in the SFs.
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Yes, you did, you wrote "What result would have better reflected the
talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x QF and 1 x SF ?" As
if this is a formula that reflects success.
What formula? Read again what I write. I don't write any formula. I
only ask you, what results should SGE have got so that you wouldn't
have considered him a miserable failure?
I have read it - I wish you would do the same. I am saying that there is
no formula that says "3QFs are acceptable" because you don't know who
will be in those QFs. # QF losses, each to the tournaments outstanding
team, would be at least something we could live with. Losing to a team
like Portugal, and playing with such complete negativity, is not.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I say that is silly -
success should be measured by how you do against the teams you have to
play, and those may be either strong or weak. England in WC '06 had a
path that pitted them against weaker teams, and they failed to put any
of them away convincingly, and then lost a game they had no business
losing. To all who watched those games, this team showed a stifling lack
of ambition and expression, and were locked in a tactical scheme that
guaranteed it would be hard for them to score.
As I wrote, you concentrate too much on one game to judge the success
of a manager who was there for 6 years. In WC '06 England won their
group with two wins and a draw. They went to QF with a win against
Ecuador. And then they lost to Portugal mainly for two reasons. One,
their striker got himself sent off by stupidity, two, they couldn't
score from penalty. Without either one of these, England would have had
a good chance of winning the game. Crouch would have come on the pitch
making the offence stronger and two Portuguese missed the goal totally
in the PKs.
Don't be so stupid. Do you really think it was acceptable for England
not to dispose of Portugal in 120+ minutes of football? Penalties should
never have come into it. Please get that into your head - 120+ minutes
to win, and in that time an almost total absence of any offensive scheme
to break down a very frail Portuguese defence. That is what we are
talking about, not Rooney's dismissal or the PK's. As far as I was
concerned, if it got to PKs, then England deserved to go out, as this
was already a total disaster.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
No, I'm not. He lost lamely to Brazil in WC '02,
Brazil was on its way to the championship. The second goal was clearly
a goalkeeping error that SGE had no power over (ok, he could have
chosen someone else than Seaman, but who?).
So? At not stage in this game, especially in the 2nd half, did England
look remotely like threatening to score on Brazil. Once again, a total
abdication brought on by completely negative tactics.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
and to Portugal in EC '04.
He's star striker got injured in the game. Portugal was playing at
home. Not so easy for the coach.
See paragraph above.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
In fact name me a critical BIG game that he won - they are few and
far between. He made his reputation by one game against Germany, and a
bunch of wins against second rate teams and part-timers.
No, the question is that _should_ England have got any better than 3
QFs with the material they had? In my opinion, no.
So you know ahead of time in all future tournaments, who will make it to
the QFs? Then get down to the betting shop an lay down a big one since
you have powers that the rest of us lack.
Post by s***@hut.fi
The big games that they won, were against Denmark and Argentina in 2002
and Ecuador in 2006.
Ecuador 2006 a "big game"? Well, the game important, but it certainly
was not a "big" win. England fumbled through on a Beckham free kick,
against a side that was completely overawed by the occasion, and offered
not one glimmer of offence in the second half. And beating Denmark is a
big win? Heaven help us.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact is
that a) Rooney should not have been left as vulnerable (given his
brittle temperament) as he was, and b) england should never have had to
shoot penalties against Portugal.
a) fair enough, but I would not put the whole blame on SGE. Rooney
himself is a thinking human being and not a robot. He has to take some
responsibility of his own actions. And it works the other way too. When
Rooney scored those great goals in EC 04, it was mainly his own
brilliance, not SGE's great thinking.
Whether Rooney is a "thinking human being" or not is clearly open to
debate. Certainly that has not been his trademark either on or off the
field up to now. And of course the players must take some responsibility
for what happened, especially Rooney. However, I think the case can
clearly be made that the players' principal problem was teh scheme they
were asked to play in, one that is so alien to the EPL.
Post by s***@hut.fi
b) England playing with 10 against 11, going to penalties doesn't look
so bad. Unless they are such hopeless penalty shooters as they were
that night.
England are always hopeless penalty shooters. I don't think they have
ever one a single penalty shootout, which is what makes it doubly
important to get a result in normal or overtime.

William Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 16:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In article
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what is?
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should
have
beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable
failure"
on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England got
as
far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my opinion it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other hand, if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
No, you missed my point. You admit that England had an easy QF opponent,
which is what I have been arguing all along.
Yes, England was lucky with the QF opponent. On the other hand, they
were unlucky to get a man sent off. Pretty much balances the luck
factor.
Good - some progress, at least.
Yes. My point being that luck is something the coach has nothing to do
with and that's why in my opinion it's better to look at _average_
performances where the luck factor disappears.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
If England had faced a truly world-class team in the QFs, played well,
but lost, then so be it. They (and the coach) would have done their best
but come up short against a better side. That was absolutely not the
case here.
So, let me get this straight, if before WC someone would have said that
England goes out in the QF, you would have agreed that it is pretty
accurate level of their skill?
Jeez, just listen for once please!! You CANNOT say ahead of a tournament
what level of progress is acceptable or not, because you do not know who
you will face beyond the group stages. Got that?
When looking at wider picture, this is exactly what you can say. You
can look at these three tournaments and see if on average the team got
to the level of their skill. Sometimes you are lucky with the opponent,
sometimes not.
Post by William A. T. Clark
There are (and I repeat
for the nth time) two points here: 1) England did not have a single
convincing performance in the entire WC, even against such weak teams as
T&T. There is clearly a tactical problem if you cannot put away vastly
inferior teams.
England won T&T 2-0. Sweden wasn't able to score against them even when
playin 11 vs. 10 for a full half.
Post by William A. T. Clark
2) England drew Portugal in the QFs, a team that they
should clearly beat, especially with 2 key players missing. That is the
"measure of their skill".
Well, here we disagree. I don't know if there is any point of
continuing.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?
England were seeded, were they not? That makes it a pretty wide view, I
think.
Yes seeded, which means top 8. And that's where they made it just like
the rest of the seeded teams except for Spain. But is "probably making
it to top-8" same as "being a pre-tournament fancy"?
Aaaah, semantics. England were certainly as fancied (unreasonably in my
view) as anyone else, given the lack of a really outstanding team in
world football at the moment.
So, England was unreasonably fancied to win the tournament. That's
exactly my opinion.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
Certainly not by team play and tactics. And individually they were not
that good at WC '06, mostly because their abilities were not properly
utilized by a limited coach. English players have limitations, in
general, compared to those from other countries, but they also have
certain strengths that others don't have. SGE never recognized or used
those strengths.
What are those strenths? Apparently at least not scoring from the
penalty spot. Or in the case of Lampard, scoring from countless
chances.
Oh, the strengths that, for example, took Liverpool past AC Milan in the
2005 EC Final. Passion and drive, for example, not introverted and
tentative.
Liverpool won AC Milan by using two (if I remember correctly) English
players.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.
No, don't play that silly game with me. I am answering your question. At
Chelsea Lampard is effective pushing forward in company with several
talented forwards, all pressuring the defence and so creating openings.
Here he was asked to come forward from deep, on rare occasions, almost
invariably alone, and forced to shoot with the defence on top of him,
and he's not very good at that, it appears.
He had open chances, he had pressured chances, he had everything. Just
couldn't deliver.
No he did not deliver, but weren't there ten other players on the field
who should have been used in supportive attacking roles?
Yes, so? When Lampard shoots, it doesn't matter where the other 10 are
(as long as they are not in front of him). It's up to him and only him
wether the ball ends up in the back of the net or 2 meters over it.
Post by William A. T. Clark
When, for
example, have you ever seen Gerard so hamstrung by a "defensive scheme"?
His game is running forward into space, not sitting back hitting long
balls. It's just nonsense.
Gerard was the best English scorer.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
So, Lampard's form and
performance were poor, but the way SGE used him was also ridiculous.
Good. So, not _all_ of England's "miserable failure" was SGE's fault?
The players played poorly, in general, but for the most part up to thier
limits in such an unfamiliar setup. How often do you see 4-5-1 in the
EPL?
Not sure of EPL, but Arsenal used exactly that in CL final. And without
having to play one man down (just like England did about half of the
game) they might have done ok. 4-4-2 is not universally superior to
4-5-1. France has played suberb 4-5-1 in the last two games. I think
the reason SGE played 4-5-1 was to give Gerard and Lampard a chance to
do their offensive work knowing that there is someone covering them.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Never, except when playing away and not to lose, so what makes
anyone think England's players will be comfortable playing that in the
WC, where you have to win? No one but you and SGE, apparently.
No, you have got me wrong. I have never denied that SGE bears _some_
responsibility of England's doings. Our difference is in the fact that
I put some of the blame on the players too.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
If SGE had coached the side properly, Lampard's apparent poor form would
not have been an issue that affected the outcomes of games. If others
had scored or created chances, for sure he would eventually have been
able to relax and start scoring himself.
Maybe SGE trusted that his trump card could deliver if enough chances
were created for him. Many successful teams were built around one
player (France-Zidane, Italy-Totti, Germany-Ballack,
Argentina-Riquelme). SGE probably hoped that Lampard could be his man.
He couldn't.
He has spent the last five years thinking Beckham was his man, so I
suppose we should be grateful for some progress.
I didn't understand how your comment related to what I wrote above.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
In England's case it might not be the best, but it was certainly better
than the Portugal XI they played in the QF. And you know, the real art
of coaching (apart from picking the right players to begin with - SGE
gets an "F" there),
Ok, let's look at this first. Yes, it can be argued that SGE could have
taken an extra striker. But when he would have been put on the pitch?
Shouldn't any coach play Rooney and Owen? And what about rest of the
team? Who should have been playing in midfield and defence instead of
those who did?
Yes, he should have played Rooney and Owen together, although Defoe
might have been more effective than Owen. Hargreaves should have been
behind them, rather than a midfield holding role he is not familiar
with. The back four played solidly, apart from those set pieces, so add
Gerard, Lampard, and I suppose Beckham, although Cole was certainly more
effective overall. Use Lennon early on the right, and leave Walcott at
home to take his driving test.
Right, so except for Walcott you would have picked pretty much the same
players. And then you say that SGE get an "F" for picking the players.
Now I start to see where your "miserable failure" comes from.
Post by William A. T. Clark
But above all, make them all drive
forward relentlessly (heat notwithstanding) in the style of the EPL. If
you lose doing that, at least we have seen the best effort under the
best scheme.
As you noticed yourself, you cannot play at the same pace at 30 degrees
as you can at 10. That's one thing. Otherwise, I do agree, that England
could have played some more offencively. However, my two points have
been, that wouldn't have changed much and that Enland's failures with
the current system are not only SGE's fault but players have to take
part of the blame.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Yes, you did, you wrote "What result would have better reflected the
talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x QF and 1 x SF ?" As
if this is a formula that reflects success.
What formula? Read again what I write. I don't write any formula. I
only ask you, what results should SGE have got so that you wouldn't
have considered him a miserable failure?
I have read it - I wish you would do the same. I am saying that there is
no formula that says "3QFs are acceptable" because you don't know who
will be in those QFs. # QF losses, each to the tournaments outstanding
team, would be at least something we could live with. Losing to a team
like Portugal, and playing with such complete negativity, is not.
Yes, sometimes you play Brazil sometimes Portugal. These are individual
matches. There is luck involved. Judging the coach's performance purely
by them is not the way. Had Terry's kick in the end of the match been
half a meter lower, SGE would have been a genious. Now he's a miserable
failure.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I say that is silly -
success should be measured by how you do against the teams you have to
play, and those may be either strong or weak. England in WC '06 had a
path that pitted them against weaker teams, and they failed to put any
of them away convincingly, and then lost a game they had no business
losing. To all who watched those games, this team showed a stifling lack
of ambition and expression, and were locked in a tactical scheme that
guaranteed it would be hard for them to score.
As I wrote, you concentrate too much on one game to judge the success
of a manager who was there for 6 years. In WC '06 England won their
group with two wins and a draw. They went to QF with a win against
Ecuador. And then they lost to Portugal mainly for two reasons. One,
their striker got himself sent off by stupidity, two, they couldn't
score from penalty. Without either one of these, England would have had
a good chance of winning the game. Crouch would have come on the pitch
making the offence stronger and two Portuguese missed the goal totally
in the PKs.
Don't be so stupid. Do you really think it was acceptable for England
not to dispose of Portugal in 120+ minutes of football?
Acceptable, yes, especially if England have to play half of that one
man down. If you don't believe, ask that "100 % toxino" (or whatever)
guy. You as an English supporter of course see things differently.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Penalties should
never have come into it. Please get that into your head - 120+ minutes
to win, and in that time an almost total absence of any offensive scheme
to break down a very frail Portuguese defence.
Frail? Portugal have conceded one goal in the tournament so far. That's
after playing against Holland and Mexico in addition to England. I
think, only Italy has been equal (and Switzerland who is already out).
Incidently, the goal against Portugal came from a set piece, which by
your definition is a coaching error.
Post by William A. T. Clark
That is what we are
talking about, not Rooney's dismissal or the PK's. As far as I was
concerned, if it got to PKs, then England deserved to go out, as this
was already a total disaster.
Maybe you would see things differently if you were not wearing
red&white glasses.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
No, I'm not. He lost lamely to Brazil in WC '02,
Brazil was on its way to the championship. The second goal was clearly
a goalkeeping error that SGE had no power over (ok, he could have
chosen someone else than Seaman, but who?).
So? At not stage in this game, especially in the 2nd half, did England
look remotely like threatening to score on Brazil. Once again, a total
abdication brought on by completely negative tactics.
Yes, the reason can't be that Brazil was very good. No, it has to be
SGE.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
and to Portugal in EC '04.
He's star striker got injured in the game. Portugal was playing at
home. Not so easy for the coach.
See paragraph above.
I don't see you commenting on Rooney's injury in any way in the above
paragraph.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
In fact name me a critical BIG game that he won - they are few and
far between. He made his reputation by one game against Germany, and a
bunch of wins against second rate teams and part-timers.
No, the question is that _should_ England have got any better than 3
QFs with the material they had? In my opinion, no.
So you know ahead of time in all future tournaments, who will make it to
the QFs? Then get down to the betting shop an lay down a big one since
you have powers that the rest of us lack.
No, I don't know. But still, I (and many people who bet) can try to
predict how far England will probably go in the tournament. QFs would
probably been my prediction if I had had to do it (I know that it's
easy to say this with hindsight).
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
The big games that they won, were against Denmark and Argentina in 2002
and Ecuador in 2006.
Ecuador 2006 a "big game"?
Yes, England had to win it. A loss would have sent them home.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Well, the game important, but it certainly
was not a "big" win. England fumbled through on a Beckham free kick,
against a side that was completely overawed by the occasion, and offered
not one glimmer of offence in the second half. And beating Denmark is a
big win? Heaven help us.
IIRC, Denmark was the group winner. And again, England _had_ to win the
match. BTW, Denmark has won EC, something England has never done.

You didn't write anything about Argentina.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact is
that a) Rooney should not have been left as vulnerable (given his
brittle temperament) as he was, and b) england should never have had to
shoot penalties against Portugal.
a) fair enough, but I would not put the whole blame on SGE. Rooney
himself is a thinking human being and not a robot. He has to take some
responsibility of his own actions. And it works the other way too. When
Rooney scored those great goals in EC 04, it was mainly his own
brilliance, not SGE's great thinking.
Whether Rooney is a "thinking human being" or not is clearly open to
debate.
LOL.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Certainly that has not been his trademark either on or off the
field up to now. And of course the players must take some responsibility
for what happened, especially Rooney. However, I think the case can
clearly be made that the players' principal problem was teh scheme they
were asked to play in, one that is so alien to the EPL.
I find it quite hard to believe that any red card could be said to be
due to the system.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
b) England playing with 10 against 11, going to penalties doesn't look
so bad. Unless they are such hopeless penalty shooters as they were
that night.
England are always hopeless penalty shooters. I don't think they have
ever one a single penalty shootout, which is what makes it doubly
important to get a result in normal or overtime.
Is bad penalty shooting (and saving) an individual skill or is that
also coach's fault especially if the team has actually practiced them
in training?

BTW, you mentioned Liverpool and CL above. They actually won CL by
penalties.

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-05 19:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Liverpool won AC Milan by using two (if I remember correctly) English
players.
Without Gerrard and Carragher they would have went out in the group
stages and everyone who isn't a part time fan knows it.
No, you have got me wrong. I have never denied that SGE bears _some_
responsibility of England's doings. Our difference is in the fact that
I put some of the blame on the players too.
How can you put the blame on the players if you insist the team
performed as expected?

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-06 01:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Liverpool won AC Milan by using two (if I remember correctly) English
players.
Without Gerrard and Carragher they would have went out in the group
stages and everyone who isn't a part time fan knows it.
Absolutely. At least there is someone who understands the Liverpool
difference.

Whew.

William Clark
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-06 01:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In article
Post by s***@hut.fi
In article
Not the case.
If the results are not the case to judge the coach then what
is?
What counts is that in both EC '04 and WC '06 he was
outcoached by a significantly inferior team that SGE should
have
beaten.
That's a purely subjective view and basing your "miserable
failure"
on
such is, in my opinion, pretty weak. In my opinion, England
got
as
far
as they could.
As far as they could with SGE as coach - not as far as they
should,
given their talent pool vis a vis their QF opponents.
No, now you are looking at individual matches and they don't tell
the
whole story, because they can be affected by events that are
totally
out of the control of the coach (such as one player deciding to
stamp
on the nuts of the opponent and getting a red card). In my
opinion
it's
better to take a wider view, look at more matches. If England had
played well, they could have beaten Portugal, but on the other
hand,
if
England had played badly against Sweden, they could have lost and
faced
Germany. The matter of fact is that they made it to QFs, which is
where
also Brazil's and Argentina's road finished.
Both Brazil and Argentina played strong teams, England did not. And
Brazil were not exactly popular for exiting at the QF stage either.
You missed my point. England was lucky to get relatively easy QF
opponent. They were unlucky that one their players lost his cool and
was sent off. These have nothing to do with the manager. So, you would
have been happy with SGE if England were beaten by France in QF instead
that they held 0-0 with 10-11 and were actually closer to score than
Portugal?
No, you missed my point. You admit that England had an easy QF opponent,
which is what I have been arguing all along.
Yes, England was lucky with the QF opponent. On the other hand, they
were unlucky to get a man sent off. Pretty much balances the luck
factor.
Good - some progress, at least.
Yes. My point being that luck is something the coach has nothing to do
with and that's why in my opinion it's better to look at _average_
performances where the luck factor disappears.
Never heard of the proverb "luck favors the prepared mind"? Perfect
example here - luck does not just happen, the coach's primary
responsibility is to prepare for all eventualities. Averages have
absolutely NOTHING to do with this, since each tournament is unique.
You might apply averages to the EPL, but not to the WC - it simply is
statistical nonsense.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
If England had faced a truly world-class team in the QFs, played well,
but lost, then so be it. They (and the coach) would have done their best
but come up short against a better side. That was absolutely not the
case here.
So, let me get this straight, if before WC someone would have said that
England goes out in the QF, you would have agreed that it is pretty
accurate level of their skill?
Jeez, just listen for once please!! You CANNOT say ahead of a tournament
what level of progress is acceptable or not, because you do not know who
you will face beyond the group stages. Got that?
When looking at wider picture, this is exactly what you can say. You
can look at these three tournaments and see if on average the team got
to the level of their skill. Sometimes you are lucky with the opponent,
sometimes not.
This is stupid. You look at each tournament on its own, and judge
achievement by the level of opposition. That's all.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
There are (and I repeat
for the nth time) two points here: 1) England did not have a single
convincing performance in the entire WC, even against such weak teams as
T&T. There is clearly a tactical problem if you cannot put away vastly
inferior teams.
England won T&T 2-0. Sweden wasn't able to score against them even when
playin 11 vs. 10 for a full half.
2-0 is putting away a bunch of part-timers? But you make my point
perfectly that Sweden were no hot shots either, and England could not
devise a tactical scheme to hold onto a lead.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
2) England drew Portugal in the QFs, a team that they
should clearly beat, especially with 2 key players missing. That is the
"measure of their skill".
Good - I am really tired of this obtuseness.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Well, here we disagree. I don't know if there is any point of
continuing.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
You dodged my comment. So, I'll formulate it into a question. In
your
opinion, was England one of the pre-tournament fancies?
Yes, they were, and given the way the draw worked out they should have
made it to the SF at least.
And just to make sure, this was a wide view and not just some trash
journalism?
England were seeded, were they not? That makes it a pretty wide view, I
think.
Yes seeded, which means top 8. And that's where they made it just like
the rest of the seeded teams except for Spain. But is "probably making
it to top-8" same as "being a pre-tournament fancy"?
Aaaah, semantics. England were certainly as fancied (unreasonably in my
view) as anyone else, given the lack of a really outstanding team in
world football at the moment.
So, England was unreasonably fancied to win the tournament. That's
exactly my opinion.
No, not necessarily to win, but to be one of the teams in with a
reasonable shout at the title, especially since there was really no
dominant team in the world going into WC 06. Given their path after the
group stages, they should at least have reached the SFs. They should
also, in at least one game, played a brand of football that was remotely
convincing. They NEVER did.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
In my opinion England were not that good. Not by individual talent or
team play.
Certainly not by team play and tactics. And individually they were not
that good at WC '06, mostly because their abilities were not properly
utilized by a limited coach. English players have limitations, in
general, compared to those from other countries, but they also have
certain strengths that others don't have. SGE never recognized or used
those strengths.
What are those strenths? Apparently at least not scoring from the
penalty spot. Or in the case of Lampard, scoring from countless
chances.
Oh, the strengths that, for example, took Liverpool past AC Milan in the
2005 EC Final. Passion and drive, for example, not introverted and
tentative.
Liverpool won AC Milan by using two (if I remember correctly) English
players.
Not English players - LIVERPOOL players, born and bred. You see, you're
like SGE, you just don't understand how to piece the chemistry together
to make England go. Liverpool have achieved so much over the years (many
might say overachieved) because they have had a core of players from
Liverpool, that give the distinct character of that city to the team. Do
you think England would come back against anybody the way Liverpool did
from 0-3 against AC Milan? Never in a million years, because SGE would
never have let slip his dogs of war the way Liverpool managers have done
over the years.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Could you tell me exactly when did SGE coach Lampard not to score
from
his 20+ shots? Did he also specifically tell him to shoot a poor
penalty?
Could you tell me why SGE had Lampard play a role so different from the
one he plays at Chelsea, and why he was surrounded by a single lone
striker, rather than a set of aggressive forwards?
So, you don't want to answer my questions. Fine.
No, don't play that silly game with me. I am answering your question. At
Chelsea Lampard is effective pushing forward in company with several
talented forwards, all pressuring the defence and so creating openings.
Here he was asked to come forward from deep, on rare occasions, almost
invariably alone, and forced to shoot with the defence on top of him,
and he's not very good at that, it appears.
He had open chances, he had pressured chances, he had everything. Just
couldn't deliver.
No he did not deliver, but weren't there ten other players on the field
who should have been used in supportive attacking roles?
Yes, so? When Lampard shoots, it doesn't matter where the other 10 are
(as long as they are not in front of him). It's up to him and only him
wether the ball ends up in the back of the net or 2 meters over it.
Of course it does - it has dictated where he shoots from, how he
instinctively feels about the rhythm of the movement - everything. Have
you ever actually played the game?
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
When, for
example, have you ever seen Gerard so hamstrung by a "defensive scheme"?
His game is running forward into space, not sitting back hitting long
balls. It's just nonsense.
Gerard was the best English scorer.
Two goals in the entire tournament. He scored two goals against West Ham
in the FA Cup Final alone, against a team distinctly better than some
England faced. He was wasted in SGE's scheme.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
So, Lampard's form and
performance were poor, but the way SGE used him was also ridiculous.
Good. So, not _all_ of England's "miserable failure" was SGE's fault?
The players played poorly, in general, but for the most part up to thier
limits in such an unfamiliar setup. How often do you see 4-5-1 in the
EPL?
Not sure of EPL, but Arsenal used exactly that in CL final. And without
having to play one man down (just like England did about half of the
game) they might have done ok. 4-4-2 is not universally superior to
4-5-1. France has played suberb 4-5-1 in the last two games. I think
the reason SGE played 4-5-1 was to give Gerard and Lampard a chance to
do their offensive work knowing that there is someone covering them.
Oh, yes, and tell me who won the CL Final? Not Arsenal, but at least
they had some excuse in being a little shorthanded. England has none.
4-5-1 is not how Gerard, Lampard, and Rooney play week in, week out, so
why change it on them?
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Never, except when playing away and not to lose, so what makes
anyone think England's players will be comfortable playing that in the
WC, where you have to win? No one but you and SGE, apparently.
No, you have got me wrong. I have never denied that SGE bears _some_
responsibility of England's doings. Our difference is in the fact that
I put some of the blame on the players too.
Of course, but it is one thing if the players play poorly under a
well-conceived plan, but quite another if they play poorly in a scheme
bereft of vision or imagination, and which is unfamiliar to them.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I have no idea _why_ SGE played the team the way he did, but that's not
the point. The point was that why didn't England's best midfielder
score from those countless chances. Was that because he's personal
talent wasn't good enough or that SGE somehow coached him not to score.
And the same thing for the penalty.
If SGE had coached the side properly, Lampard's apparent poor form would
not have been an issue that affected the outcomes of games. If others
had scored or created chances, for sure he would eventually have been
able to relax and start scoring himself.
Maybe SGE trusted that his trump card could deliver if enough chances
were created for him. Many successful teams were built around one
player (France-Zidane, Italy-Totti, Germany-Ballack,
Argentina-Riquelme). SGE probably hoped that Lampard could be his man.
He couldn't.
He has spent the last five years thinking Beckham was his man, so I
suppose we should be grateful for some progress.
I didn't understand how your comment related to what I wrote above.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I accept that it's coaches fault that he picks the wrong players or a
wrong tactical system or makes bad substitutes, but I find it quite
ridiculous that now it's also coaches fault that players' technical
ability isn't good enough.
In England's case it might not be the best, but it was certainly better
than the Portugal XI they played in the QF. And you know, the real art
of coaching (apart from picking the right players to begin with - SGE
gets an "F" there),
Ok, let's look at this first. Yes, it can be argued that SGE could have
taken an extra striker. But when he would have been put on the pitch?
Shouldn't any coach play Rooney and Owen? And what about rest of the
team? Who should have been playing in midfield and defence instead of
those who did?
Yes, he should have played Rooney and Owen together, although Defoe
might have been more effective than Owen. Hargreaves should have been
behind them, rather than a midfield holding role he is not familiar
with. The back four played solidly, apart from those set pieces, so add
Gerard, Lampard, and I suppose Beckham, although Cole was certainly more
effective overall. Use Lennon early on the right, and leave Walcott at
home to take his driving test.
Right, so except for Walcott you would have picked pretty much the same
players. And then you say that SGE get an "F" for picking the players.
Now I start to see where your "miserable failure" comes from.
No, certainly no one would EVER have picked Walcott, especially to leave
Defoe at home. There are plenty of other question marks about the likes
of Bridge
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
But above all, make them all drive
forward relentlessly (heat notwithstanding) in the style of the EPL. If
you lose doing that, at least we have seen the best effort under the
best scheme.
As you noticed yourself, you cannot play at the same pace at 30 degrees
as you can at 10. That's one thing. Otherwise, I do agree, that England
could have played some more offencively. However, my two points have
been, that wouldn't have changed much and that Enland's failures with
the current system are not only SGE's fault but players have to take
part of the blame.
Rooney plays at ManU as a forward supporting a striker. In that role he
can use space and distribute the ball, in the manner that Zidane has
done so well in this WC. So what does SGE do? Plays him as a lone
striker, having long balls pumped upfield to him. Crazy. Beckham's time
at Real Madrid has robbed him of the level of fitness he had under the
ferocious ManU training regime. He simply couldn't keep up with the
pace, or the speed at which he used to play. We ca go on, but you get
the drift.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
I was talking about the whole SGE's career. What result would have
better reflected the talent of the players that he had than 3 x
QF? 2
x
QF and 1 x SF ? Is that so much different that one would make him
an
idiot and the other one a genious?
No, you do not understand. There is no formula that says 3QFs=2QFS +
1SF;
What? I didn't write that. Read again.
Yes, you did, you wrote "What result would have better reflected the
talent of the players that he had than 3 x QF? 2 x QF and 1 x SF ?" As
if this is a formula that reflects success.
What formula? Read again what I write. I don't write any formula. I
only ask you, what results should SGE have got so that you wouldn't
have considered him a miserable failure?
I have read it - I wish you would do the same. I am saying that there is
no formula that says "3QFs are acceptable" because you don't know who
will be in those QFs. # QF losses, each to the tournaments outstanding
team, would be at least something we could live with. Losing to a team
like Portugal, and playing with such complete negativity, is not.
Yes, sometimes you play Brazil sometimes Portugal. These are individual
matches. There is luck involved. Judging the coach's performance purely
by them is not the way. Had Terry's kick in the end of the match been
half a meter lower, SGE would have been a genious. Now he's a miserable
failure.
No, SGE would not have been a genius, because such a win would only have
covered up yet another thoroughly unconvincing performance. And that is
what this is about, far more than actual wins and losses. Playing the
kind of football that an England team, especially a pretty talented one
like this, needs to do in order to win, and it is not sit in a 4-5-1
defensive shell, playing for overtime and a penalty shootout.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
I say that is silly -
success should be measured by how you do against the teams you have to
play, and those may be either strong or weak. England in WC '06 had a
path that pitted them against weaker teams, and they failed to put any
of them away convincingly, and then lost a game they had no business
losing. To all who watched those games, this team showed a stifling lack
of ambition and expression, and were locked in a tactical scheme that
guaranteed it would be hard for them to score.
As I wrote, you concentrate too much on one game to judge the success
of a manager who was there for 6 years. In WC '06 England won their
group with two wins and a draw. They went to QF with a win against
Ecuador. And then they lost to Portugal mainly for two reasons. One,
their striker got himself sent off by stupidity, two, they couldn't
score from penalty. Without either one of these, England would have had
a good chance of winning the game. Crouch would have come on the pitch
making the offence stronger and two Portuguese missed the goal totally
in the PKs.
Don't be so stupid. Do you really think it was acceptable for England
not to dispose of Portugal in 120+ minutes of football?
Acceptable, yes, especially if England have to play half of that one
man down. If you don't believe, ask that "100 % toxino" (or whatever)
guy. You as an English supporter of course see things differently.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Penalties should
never have come into it. Please get that into your head - 120+ minutes
to win, and in that time an almost total absence of any offensive scheme
to break down a very frail Portuguese defence.
Frail? Portugal have conceded one goal in the tournament so far. That's
after playing against Holland and Mexico in addition to England. I
think, only Italy has been equal (and Switzerland who is already out).
Incidently, the goal against Portugal came from a set piece, which by
your definition is a coaching error.
Still not convincing in a WC where attacking football seems to have been
a rarity.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
That is what we are
talking about, not Rooney's dismissal or the PK's. As far as I was
concerned, if it got to PKs, then England deserved to go out, as this
was already a total disaster.
Oh, come on, you can do better than simply should "prejudice". For
example, it is not me blaming England's demise (conveniently) on
Rooney's dismissal, as many of the English press and public are doing.
So try a better tactic than this, it doesn't become you.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Maybe you would see things differently if you were not wearing
red&white glasses.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
each tournament is different, because the draw is different.
However, England have made lame exits from the last 2 WCs, in one case
against a team they should certainly have beaten. That's the measure -
do you beat teams you should or not? England recently have not.
So, now you are judging SGE's six years based on _one_ game, where one
of the players got sent off because his own stupidity and three guys
shot bad penalties. All this SGE's fault and nothing wrong with the
players who actually did the nut stomping, shot lame penalties and were
no where near of saving any of the opposition?
No, I'm not. He lost lamely to Brazil in WC '02,
Brazil was on its way to the championship. The second goal was clearly
a goalkeeping error that SGE had no power over (ok, he could have
chosen someone else than Seaman, but who?).
So? At not stage in this game, especially in the 2nd half, did England
look remotely like threatening to score on Brazil. Once again, a total
abdication brought on by completely negative tactics.
Yes, the reason can't be that Brazil was very good. No, it has to be
SGE.
Brazil were very good, but England had them at 1-0, but instead of going
for the second goal and the kill, they retreated into a defensive shell,
and paid for it weakly.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
and to Portugal in EC '04.
He's star striker got injured in the game. Portugal was playing at
home. Not so easy for the coach.
See paragraph above.
I don't see you commenting on Rooney's injury in any way in the above
paragraph.
Have adequate backup and change the game plan to suit. That's coaching,
and something that SGE has never been able to do.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
In fact name me a critical BIG game that he won - they are few and
far between. He made his reputation by one game against Germany, and a
bunch of wins against second rate teams and part-timers.
No, the question is that _should_ England have got any better than 3
QFs with the material they had? In my opinion, no.
So you know ahead of time in all future tournaments, who will make it to
the QFs? Then get down to the betting shop an lay down a big one since
you have powers that the rest of us lack.
No, I don't know. But still, I (and many people who bet) can try to
predict how far England will probably go in the tournament. QFs would
probably been my prediction if I had had to do it (I know that it's
easy to say this with hindsight).
QFs if they were up against one of the big boys, possibly, but not
acceptable against Portugal. Especially missing a) their key attacking
general, and b) their best defender. Sorry.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
The big games that they won, were against Denmark and Argentina in 2002
and Ecuador in 2006.
Ecuador 2006 a "big game"?
Yes, England had to win it. A loss would have sent them home.
Oh, wow. Mighty Ecuador was a real challenge, but a game England tried
fairly hard to lose. But for a shot off the bar, and a Beckham free
kick, they might have.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Well, the game important, but it certainly
was not a "big" win. England fumbled through on a Beckham free kick,
against a side that was completely overawed by the occasion, and offered
not one glimmer of offence in the second half. And beating Denmark is a
big win? Heaven help us.
IIRC, Denmark was the group winner. And again, England _had_ to win the
match. BTW, Denmark has won EC, something England has never done.
You didn't write anything about Argentina.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
The fact is
that a) Rooney should not have been left as vulnerable (given his
brittle temperament) as he was, and b) england should never have had to
shoot penalties against Portugal.
a) fair enough, but I would not put the whole blame on SGE. Rooney
himself is a thinking human being and not a robot. He has to take some
responsibility of his own actions. And it works the other way too. When
Rooney scored those great goals in EC 04, it was mainly his own
brilliance, not SGE's great thinking.
Whether Rooney is a "thinking human being" or not is clearly open to
debate.
LOL.
Post by William A. T. Clark
Certainly that has not been his trademark either on or off the
field up to now. And of course the players must take some responsibility
for what happened, especially Rooney. However, I think the case can
clearly be made that the players' principal problem was teh scheme they
were asked to play in, one that is so alien to the EPL.
I find it quite hard to believe that any red card could be said to be
due to the system.
No, but Rooney is a powder keg - he got sent off against Northern
Ireland (another memorable loss), and threw a tantrum when he was
replaced against Sweden. SGE should have sat him down and read him his
England horoscope after the first such incident, not protected him in
cotton wool so that he learns nothing from the experience. Having said
that, to play him up alone up front, back to the goal, so that Carvalho
could hack him to death all game long, was simply asking for trouble -
it was just a matter of time.
Post by s***@hut.fi
Post by William A. T. Clark
Post by s***@hut.fi
b) England playing with 10 against 11, going to penalties doesn't look
so bad. Unless they are such hopeless penalty shooters as they were
that night.
England are always hopeless penalty shooters. I don't think they have
ever one a single penalty shootout, which is what makes it doubly
important to get a result in normal or overtime.
Is bad penalty shooting (and saving) an individual skill or is that
also coach's fault especially if the team has actually practiced them
in training?
BTW, you mentioned Liverpool and CL above. They actually won CL by
penalties.
Yes, after having engineered the greatest comeback in EC history . That,
and the grit to be the ONLY English team that I have ever seen win an
important penalty shootout, comes back to the Liverpool difference -
they simply have that extra measure of will and determination that
England lacked, and SGE never understood.

William Clark
Benny
2006-07-03 18:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
Of course.
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Which countries had the same level of talent in Europe? Only France.
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
They won the World Cup, Copa America & Confed Cup.
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Copa America final, Confed Cup final.
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
WC semi-final.
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
WC semi-final.
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
WC semi-final and Confed Cup winners (thought it wasn't as strong a
field as last years competition)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Final of Euro Champs, semi-final of WC.
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place and for a country rich in
domestic talent it's no achievement at all.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-03 20:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
Of course.
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Which countries had the same level of talent in Europe? Only France.
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
They won the World Cup, Copa America & Confed Cup.
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Copa America final, Confed Cup final.
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
WC semi-final.
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
WC semi-final.
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
WC semi-final and Confed Cup winners (thought it wasn't as strong a
field as last years competition)
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Final of Euro Champs, semi-final of WC.
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place and for a country rich in
domestic talent it's no achievement at all.
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
I'll say it again. Why did you fire Keegan then? Or let him quit, as it
were. Because you needed someone to get you into the WC. Sven did that.


You never had a manager qualify you for three consecutive major
tourneys. Sven did that.

So let's stop all this moanin and girnin about how Sven didnt take you
to the next level and he wasted the "Golden Generation" of players,
because he did take you to the next level. And in 08 when you basically
still have the same players OR better ones since Lennon is supposed to
be soooooo much better than Beckham, I don't want to hear it when you
crash out of the tourney again.

Hmmm...a manager who throws his player under the bus (Hoddle) or one
that shows class and asks that Rooney be spared (Sven).

I'm not glad England went out. I'm not happy with Sven's selections or
tactics (They were decidedly Bruce Arena like) but its time the English
stood up and took responsibility for their own.

If not for Lampards and Crouchs ineptitude you would have had
scorelines of 3-0 and 4-0 in some of your games. And what about Beckham
who was the best non defender you had? Who had 3 'assists' and one goal
out of the six you scored? Game in and game out i see him get savaged
in the press and on newsgroups. But you put some kid out there who can
do a couple of fucking stepovers (Lennon) and suddenly he's the English
Ronaldinho and everyone's saying Beckhams played his last
International.

A bunch of ungrateful cunts.
Benny
2006-07-03 21:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
I'll say it again. Why did you fire Keegan then? Or let him quit, as it
were. Because you needed someone to get you into the WC. Sven did that.
Because failure to qualify for a major tournament is unacceptable for a
country like England.
You never had a manager qualify you for three consecutive major
tourneys. Sven did that.
With the most talented squad since 1966, big deal, even Graham Taylor
would have managed it.
So let's stop all this moanin and girnin about how Sven didnt take you
to the next level and he wasted the "Golden Generation" of players,
because he did take you to the next level. And in 08 when you basically
still have the same players OR better ones since Lennon is supposed to
be soooooo much better than Beckham, I don't want to hear it when you
crash out of the tourney again.
Hmmm...a manager who throws his player under the bus (Hoddle) or one
that shows class and asks that Rooney be spared (Sven).
I'm not glad England went out. I'm not happy with Sven's selections or
tactics (They were decidedly Bruce Arena like) but its time the English
stood up and took responsibility for their own.
If not for Lampards and Crouchs ineptitude you would have had
scorelines of 3-0 and 4-0 in some of your games. And what about Beckham
who was the best non defender you had? Who had 3 'assists' and one goal
out of the six you scored? Game in and game out i see him get savaged
in the press and on newsgroups. But you put some kid out there who can
do a couple of fucking stepovers (Lennon) and suddenly he's the English
Ronaldinho and everyone's saying Beckhams played his last
International.
A bunch of ungrateful cunts.
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England. Had the players went down in a blaze of
glory as they did so magnificently against Germany in 1990 and in 1996
and against Argentina in 1998 no one would be complaining. They tried,
they gave 100%, it wasn't enough, fine, we can live with it. What is
totally and utterly unacceptable is to see the team play like cowards,
to meekly surrender and hide behind excuses like penalties, red cards
and referees. That is what England have become under SGE, a passionless
team, a team without cahones, the very reflection of that insipid
bastard that has sat on the bench for the last 6 years.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
James Farrar
2006-07-03 22:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England.
Who have only ever won one tournament.

Three QFs in a row is a historically very good performance for
England.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Rolleston
2006-07-03 22:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
Post by Benny
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England.
Who have only ever won one tournament.
Three QFs in a row is a historically very good performance for
England.
Historically very consistent, but in terms of performance, I'd bet
it's more or less average for the WCs England have qualified for.

England nearly always reach the quarterfinals, or the preceding or
following match.

R.
Benny
2006-07-03 22:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
Post by Benny
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England.
Who have only ever won one tournament.
They weren't good enough to win more, they are now, they were in 2002.
Three QFs in a row is a historically very good performance for
England.
And historically Chelsea were a cup team, what's your point?

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-03 22:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
Post by Benny
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England.
Who have only ever won one tournament.
They weren't good enough to win more, they are now, they were in 2002.
Three QFs in a row is a historically very good performance for
England.
And historically Chelsea were a cup team, what's your point?
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Benny I think you make a lot of good points just for the record. But
one could argue the OVER-performed this WC not under. They had no
strikers for all purposes. Neither Rooney or Owen were fit. And we have
no idea how Bent or Defoe would have performed.

Except for the Sweden gaffe the defense has been spectacular. Why
doesn't Sven get credit for that?

I'd say a team that had no strikers and a misfiring midfield did well
to lose on PK's in the quarterfinals.

And what the hell is all this talk about how things won't be better
under Mclaren? Talk about hedging your bets. By your (and a lot of
other people on this froup) logic all he has to do is play a 4-4-2 (or
a 4-3-1-2 with wonderboy Lennon at AMC) and he can't lose.

Sidenote: When is Stewart Downing going to come along? He's the bomb on
my WSM game.
Rolleston
2006-07-03 22:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Benny I think you make a lot of good points just for the record. But
one could argue the OVER-performed this WC not under. They had no
strikers for all purposes. Neither Rooney or Owen were fit. And we have
no idea how Bent or Defoe would have performed.
Except for the Sweden gaffe the defense has been spectacular. Why
doesn't Sven get credit for that?
I'd say a team that had no strikers and a misfiring midfield did well
to lose on PK's in the quarterfinals.
Your argument is, essentially, England over-performed for an England
team managed by Sven-Goran Eriksson.

R.
Benny
2006-07-03 23:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
Benny I think you make a lot of good points just for the record. But
one could argue the OVER-performed this WC not under. They had no
strikers for all purposes. Neither Rooney or Owen were fit. And we have
no idea how Bent or Defoe would have performed.
True but Portugal were in the same boat.
Except for the Sweden gaffe the defense has been spectacular. Why
doesn't Sven get credit for that?
Probably because club coaches get credit for that.
I'd say a team that had no strikers and a misfiring midfield did well
to lose on PK's in the quarterfinals.
Given the way they had performed upto that point that's true but that's
not really the issue, the knives were out for SGE before the tournament
started, this just confirmed everyone's fears but we still expected the
team to play good football and beat an average Portugal team without
it's best player, even SGE should have been capable of that and that's
what's really, really frustrating.
And what the hell is all this talk about how things won't be better
under Mclaren? Talk about hedging your bets. By your (and a lot of
other people on this froup) logic all he has to do is play a 4-4-2 (or
a 4-3-1-2 with wonderboy Lennon at AMC) and he can't lose.
I don't like is this whole part of the solution part of the problem
brush some are painting McClaren with. Let's not forget McClaren was
Taggart's assistant coach during the clubs most successful period and
let's not also forget that while many fans were critical of the
defensive nature of the football Boro played under him, he also had a
string of impressive results, prized scalps, great cup runs and players
he has brought into the youth side at what is after all a very modest
club. Wait and see.
Sidenote: When is Stewart Downing going to come along? He's the bomb on
my WSM game.
He's been average since coming back from injury and may even be sold in
the future given the high hopes the fans have for another left winger,
Adam Johnson.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-04 13:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
Post by Benny
Grateful for what? 3 QFs? We're not talking about Spain or Denmark,
we're talking about England.
Who have only ever won one tournament.
They weren't good enough to win more, they are now, they were in 2002.
Three QFs in a row is a historically very good performance for
England.
And historically Chelsea were a cup team, what's your point?
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Benny I think you make a lot of good points just for the record. But
one could argue the OVER-performed this WC not under. They had no
strikers for all purposes. Neither Rooney or Owen were fit. And we have
no idea how Bent or Defoe would have performed.
Yes, and who selected Theo Walcott over, for example, Defoe and others,
knowing that Rooney would probably not play until the KO stages, and
that Owen was in the early stages of recovering form yet another injury?

Thank you.
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Except for the Sweden gaffe the defense has been spectacular. Why
doesn't Sven get credit for that?
They didn't play anyone with an attack, but still coughed up two
ridiculous goals to the Swedes.
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
I'd say a team that had no strikers and a misfiring midfield did well
to lose on PK's in the quarterfinals.
And what the hell is all this talk about how things won't be better
under Mclaren? Talk about hedging your bets. By your (and a lot of
other people on this froup) logic all he has to do is play a 4-4-2 (or
a 4-3-1-2 with wonderboy Lennon at AMC) and he can't lose.
It simply boils down to the fact that you cannot go into the latter KO
stages of the World Cup playing a (very) lone striker. That's dumb, and
it does not work.

William Clark
Bruce Scott TOK
2006-07-04 11:01:56 UTC
Permalink
[...] What is
totally and utterly unacceptable is to see the team play like cowards,
to meekly surrender and hide behind excuses like penalties, red cards
and referees. That is what England have become under SGE, a passionless
team, a team without cahones, the very reflection of that insipid
bastard that has sat on the bench for the last 6 years.
That's the main point... as a USA fan I can sympathise. I don't expect
to win the World Cup, or even with this year's constellation to get out
of the group. But I do expect the team to fight like it means something
to have their national shirt on their backs. Against the Czechs the
lack of heart was totally unacceptable. Though they made up for it
against Italy, they didn't exactly light it up against Ghana. In 2002
it was different: we went down fighting against Germany and no one was
disappointed.

England fans expect their players to play as if those three lions mean
something, not as if it is just another professional outing.
Unfortunately, Sven did seem to give them a sort of fair weather
attitude. Only in the last Euro was it at all otherwise.
--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Benny
2006-07-04 16:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good luck
That's the main point... as a USA fan I can sympathise. I don't expect
to win the World Cup, or even with this year's constellation to get out
of the group. But I do expect the team to fight like it means something
to have their national shirt on their backs. Against the Czechs the
lack of heart was totally unacceptable. Though they made up for it
against Italy, they didn't exactly light it up against Ghana. In 2002
it was different: we went down fighting against Germany and no one was
disappointed.
England fans expect their players to play as if those three lions mean
something, not as if it is just another professional outing.
Unfortunately, Sven did seem to give them a sort of fair weather
attitude. Only in the last Euro was it at all otherwise.
Exactly.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
James Farrar
2006-07-03 21:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place
How many quarter final places are worth one semi-final place?
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Benny
2006-07-03 22:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place
How many quarter final places are worth one semi-final place?
For a team like England, no amount.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
James Farrar
2006-07-03 22:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place
How many quarter final places are worth one semi-final place?
For a team like England, no amount.
How far does that go? No amount of semi-final places is worth a final
place? No amount of final defeats is worth a single championship won?
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Benny
2006-07-03 22:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
How far does that go? No amount of semi-final places is worth a final
place? No amount of final defeats is worth a single championship won?
It goes as far as you want it to go and I have no time for your pedantic
games, the bottom line is 3 QFs is not good enough for a team that has
the level of talent as this England team.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
James Farrar
2006-07-03 22:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
How far does that go? No amount of semi-final places is worth a final
place? No amount of final defeats is worth a single championship won?
It goes as far as you want it to go and I have no time for your pedantic
games,
That's because you've sussed the logical conclusion of your position.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
Benny
2006-07-03 23:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
That's because you've sussed the logical conclusion of your position.
You're jumping to conclusions again.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
James Farrar
2006-07-03 23:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
That's because you've sussed the logical conclusion of your position.
You're jumping to conclusions again.
Sorry, I didn't think you had time for this.
--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com
William A. T. Clark
2006-07-04 12:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Farrar
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
How far does that go? No amount of semi-final places is worth a final
place? No amount of final defeats is worth a single championship won?
It goes as far as you want it to go and I have no time for your pedantic
games,
That's because you've sussed the logical conclusion of your position.
No, because it has to be taken in context. If England had been in a
group with Germany, Italy, and Argentina, we would have been delighted
if they had qualified for the knockout stages. They weren't - they were
in with two very weak teams, and one mediocre one. If England had had to
play one of those same strong teams (or France, Brazil, and one or two
others) in the KO stages, we would have been pleased to see them
advance. But they did not, they played an Ecuador team that had
absolutely no ambition to attack, and they played a very ordinary
Portuguese team missing two key players. That being the case, we are
entitled to say that the QF was NOT good enough, given the opportunity
England had. When you add to that the fact that they lost playing
football of stifling naivity, based on an absurd selection, then SGE has
to take the blame.

WIlliam Clark
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-04 08:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
So, when he reached QF twice in WC and once in EC that's a miserable
failure?
Of course.
So, which countries have been able to do that?
Which countries had the same level of talent in Europe? Only France.
At least Germany and Italy. Maybe also Spain.
Post by Benny
Brazil, yes (well, not in EC, but in Copa America)
They won the World Cup, Copa America & Confed Cup.
Argentina, no (last WC, group stage)
Copa America final, Confed Cup final.
Copa America final is nothing to Argentina. They are expected to be
there with Brazil. Confed Cup is a joke compared to other tournaments.
Post by Benny
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
WC semi-final.
Yes, but I was talking about consistency. In the last EC, they didn't
make it past the group stage. Isn't that a more miserable failure than
England's result?
Post by Benny
Italy, no (last WC, 8th final, EC group stage)
WC semi-final.
So, you don't care that in the last two tournaments they haven't even
got to the QFs?
Post by Benny
Spain, no (EC, group stage, this WC, 8th final)
France, no (last WC, group stage)
WC semi-final and Confed Cup winners (thought it wasn't as strong a
field as last years competition)
Yes, they are good now, but crap last time. On average, about the same
as England.
Post by Benny
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Final of Euro Champs, semi-final of WC.
But lost to Korea and the US in last WC. And EC was their home
tournament.
Post by Benny
Any other contenders?
So, only Brazil has had the same consistency as Sven's England in
reaching QFs is major tournaments. Is that a miserable failure?
3 QFs isn't worth one semi-final place and for a country rich in
domestic talent it's no achievement at all.
Ok, so if Sven had taken England to semis in 2002, then stayed at group
stage in EC and made it now to 8th final (pretty much what Italy has
done), you would say that he had done ok? Why all or nothing is better
than consistent good performance?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-04 16:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
Which countries had the same level of talent in Europe? Only France.
At least Germany and Italy. Maybe also Spain.
GERMANY

Better goalkeeper and a better striker (Klose). Ballack is on the same
level as Gerrard and Lampard.

ITALY

Better goalkeeper, better strikers and a better DM (Gattuso), Cannavaro
and Nesta and Terry and Ferdinand are equal.


SPAIN

Better goalkeeper. Puyol aside, Spain's defence is nowhere near as good
as England's. Spain are better on the flanks, England are better in
central midfield and in attack.
Copa America final is nothing to Argentina. They are expected to be
there with Brazil. Confed Cup is a joke compared to other tournaments.
The last Confed Cup was taken seriously by everyone, all the teams sent
strong sides.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
WC semi-final.
Yes, but I was talking about consistency. In the last EC, they didn't
make it past the group stage. Isn't that a more miserable failure than
England's result?
Not anymore it isn't.
So, you don't care that in the last two tournaments they haven't even
got to the QFs?
I care because I support Italy but I'd take a semi-final over any number
of QF places.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
France, no (last WC, group stage)
WC semi-final and Confed Cup winners (thought it wasn't as strong a
field as last years competition)
Yes, they are good now, but crap last time. On average, about the same
as England.
A semi-final isn't about the same.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Final of Euro Champs, semi-final of WC.
But lost to Korea and the US in last WC. And EC was their home
tournament.
Still better than England.
Ok, so if Sven had taken England to semis in 2002, then stayed at group
stage in EC and made it now to 8th final (pretty much what Italy has
done), you would say that he had done ok?
Yes.
Why all or nothing is better
than consistent good performance?
Yes.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 11:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
Which countries had the same level of talent in Europe? Only France.
At least Germany and Italy. Maybe also Spain.
GERMANY
Better goalkeeper and a better striker (Klose). Ballack is on the same
level as Gerrard and Lampard.
So, roughly the same talent level as England.
Post by Benny
ITALY
Better goalkeeper, better strikers and a better DM (Gattuso), Cannavaro
and Nesta and Terry and Ferdinand are equal.
So again, the same talent level.
Post by Benny
SPAIN
Better goalkeeper. Puyol aside, Spain's defence is nowhere near as good
as England's. Spain are better on the flanks, England are better in
central midfield and in attack.
So again, about the same level. Then add Argentina and Brazil and maybe
two surprise teams per tournament and you'll have the quarterfinalists.
Among these, England is pretty much average.
Post by Benny
Copa America final is nothing to Argentina. They are expected to be
there with Brazil. Confed Cup is a joke compared to other tournaments.
The last Confed Cup was taken seriously by everyone, all the teams sent
strong sides.
Yes, but the teams there are not that great. Only two European and
South American sides. Making it to the final is nowhere near as tough
as in WC.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Germany, no (EC, group stage)
WC semi-final.
Yes, but I was talking about consistency. In the last EC, they didn't
make it past the group stage. Isn't that a more miserable failure than
England's result?
Not anymore it isn't.
So, you don't care that in the last two tournaments they haven't even
got to the QFs?
I care because I support Italy but I'd take a semi-final over any number
of QF places.
So, when judging the coach's performance, you wipe out his failures, if
he is able to do well once (I know that Italy have changed the coach,
but let's assume that they haven't)?
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
France, no (last WC, group stage)
WC semi-final and Confed Cup winners (thought it wasn't as strong a
field as last years competition)
Yes, they are good now, but crap last time. On average, about the same
as England.
A semi-final isn't about the same.
Same as above. Not being able to score a single goal in three group
stage matches is wiped out by the better performance in the next WC?
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Portugal, no (last WC, group stage)
Final of Euro Champs, semi-final of WC.
But lost to Korea and the US in last WC. And EC was their home
tournament.
Still better than England.
Ok, so if Sven had taken England to semis in 2002, then stayed at group
stage in EC and made it now to 8th final (pretty much what Italy has
done), you would say that he had done ok?
Yes.
So, no matter how crappy their performance is in tournaments in general
(or even not making it to them) doesn't matter, if there is a moment of
brilliance? If so, how do you separate luck from good coaching?
Post by Benny
Why all or nothing is better
than consistent good performance?
Yes.
I have never seen anyone answer "yes" to a question starting with
"why", but apparently that's possible in English language.


Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-05 12:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
So, roughly the same talent level as England.
How do you figure if England are stronger in defence and in central
midfield that's the same?
So again, the same talent level.
4 defenders > 2 defenders.
Post by Benny
SPAIN
Better goalkeeper. Puyol aside, Spain's defence is nowhere near as good
as England's. Spain are better on the flanks, England are better in
central midfield and in attack.
So again, about the same level. Then add Argentina and Brazil and maybe
two surprise teams per tournament and you'll have the quarterfinalists.
Among these, England is pretty much average.
Learn to count, 4 defenders > 1 defender.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Copa America final is nothing to Argentina. They are expected to be
there with Brazil. Confed Cup is a joke compared to other tournaments.
The last Confed Cup was taken seriously by everyone, all the teams sent
strong sides.
Yes, but the teams there are not that great. Only two European and
South American sides. Making it to the final is nowhere near as tough
as in WC.
You're missing the point and it's obvious you didn't watch the
tournament. Everyone sent very strong squads so reaching the final and
winning the tournament was actually a big deal.
So, when judging the coach's performance, you wipe out his failures, if
he is able to do well once (I know that Italy have changed the coach,
but let's assume that they haven't)?
3 QFs for England is a failure.
Post by Benny
A semi-final isn't about the same.
Same as above. Not being able to score a single goal in three group
stage matches is wiped out by the better performance in the next WC?
I'm not interested in hypothetical questions, 3 QFs is a failure. Even
that imbecile SGE has admitted it.
So, no matter how crappy their performance is in tournaments in general
(or even not making it to them) doesn't matter, if there is a moment of
brilliance? If so, how do you separate luck from good coaching?
Now you're getting desperate. Luck has nothing to do with it, SGE was an
inept longball merchant at Lazio. Nothing has changed.
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Why all or nothing is better
than consistent good performance?
Yes.
I have never seen anyone answer "yes" to a question starting with
"why", but apparently that's possible in English language.
You asked a question. Don't blame me for you poor punctuation.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-05 16:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
So, roughly the same talent level as England.
How do you figure if England are stronger in defence and in central
midfield that's the same?
You deleted the part where my comment was directed. Maybe it was
Germany. I think you wrote that Germany has better strikers and
goalkeeper. So, if England has better defence and central midfield,
then I think it's roughly same talent level.
Post by Benny
So again, the same talent level.
4 defenders > 2 defenders.
Was this for Italy? Which defenders you are now talking about?
Zambrotta is probably the best full back in the tournament and the
Italian central defence is at least as good as English. Italy has
better keeper, England possibly better midfield. I would give the
striker superiority to Italy. So again, pretty even.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
SPAIN
Better goalkeeper. Puyol aside, Spain's defence is nowhere near as good
as England's. Spain are better on the flanks, England are better in
central midfield and in attack.
So again, about the same level. Then add Argentina and Brazil and maybe
two surprise teams per tournament and you'll have the quarterfinalists.
Among these, England is pretty much average.
Learn to count, 4 defenders > 1 defender.
I didn't know we were talking about only defenders. I have been looking
at the whole team. You learn to count, a football team has 11 players,
not 4.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Copa America final is nothing to Argentina. They are expected to be
there with Brazil. Confed Cup is a joke compared to other tournaments.
The last Confed Cup was taken seriously by everyone, all the teams sent
strong sides.
Yes, but the teams there are not that great. Only two European and
South American sides. Making it to the final is nowhere near as tough
as in WC.
You're missing the point and it's obvious you didn't watch the
tournament.
Yes, I did watch it.
Post by Benny
Everyone sent very strong squads so reaching the final and
winning the tournament was actually a big deal.
No, it's not, because getting to semis is so much easier than in WC,
especially as the other European side was Greece.
Post by Benny
So, when judging the coach's performance, you wipe out his failures, if
he is able to do well once (I know that Italy have changed the coach,
but let's assume that they haven't)?
3 QFs for England is a failure.
In that case, England has been succesful only twice in all WCs. So, the
coach in all the other WCs was a miserable failure?
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
A semi-final isn't about the same.
Same as above. Not being able to score a single goal in three group
stage matches is wiped out by the better performance in the next WC?
I'm not interested in hypothetical questions,
Of course you're not, because it would make you see the weakness of
your argument.
Post by Benny
3 QFs is a failure. Even
that imbecile SGE has admitted it.
SGE says that just to protect himself from more crap from the press.
Post by Benny
So, no matter how crappy their performance is in tournaments in general
(or even not making it to them) doesn't matter, if there is a moment of
brilliance? If so, how do you separate luck from good coaching?
Now you're getting desperate.
What do you mean?
Post by Benny
Luck has nothing to do with it,
That's right, if you look at the _average_ of the team's performance.
However, you have refused to do that.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Post by s***@hut.fi
Why all or nothing is better
than consistent good performance?
Yes.
I have never seen anyone answer "yes" to a question starting with
"why", but apparently that's possible in English language.
You asked a question.
Yes I did and it started with a word "why". I don't see how it's
possible to answer such a question with "yes" especially if the order
of the words is subject-verb-object. Maybe you can help me.
Post by Benny
Don't blame me for you poor punctuation.
I don't see how the question can be anything else than what I asked no
matter where you put the commas. I think, you misread my question and
are just too arrogant to admit it and instead turn to blame me for poor
punctuation knowing that I am a foreigner. If anyone, it's you who is
getting desperate.

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-05 19:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
You deleted the part where my comment was directed. Maybe it was
Germany. I think you wrote that Germany has better strikers and
goalkeeper. So, if England has better defence and central midfield,
then I think it's roughly same talent level.
It is not roughly the same :

GERMANY

Better goalkeeper and a better striker (Klose). Ballack is on the same
level as Gerrard and Lampard.

Makes England better in 6 positions.

ITALY

Better goalkeeper, better strikers and a better DM (Gattuso), Cannavaro
and Nesta and Terry and Ferdinand are equal.

Makes England better in 5 positions (full back positions and across
midfield apart from DM).
Post by Benny
Everyone sent very strong squads so reaching the final and
winning the tournament was actually a big deal.
No, it's not, because getting to semis is so much easier than in WC,
especially as the other European side was Greece.
The only reason getting to the semis is easier because there are
considerably less matches to play.
In that case, England has been succesful only twice in all WCs. So, the
coach in all the other WCs was a miserable failure?
It depends on the talent available, something which has clearly not been
lacking for a number of years.
Of course you're not, because it would make you see the weakness of
your argument.
My argument has no weakness.
Post by Benny
3 QFs is a failure. Even
that imbecile SGE has admitted it.
SGE says that just to protect himself from more crap from the press.
No he says it because it's dawned on the miserable cretin that he
screwed up.
Yes I did and it started with a word "why". I don't see how it's
possible to answer such a question with "yes" especially if the order
of the words is subject-verb-object. Maybe you can help me.
Here's what you should have wrote :

'Why, all or nothing is better than consistent good performance?'

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-06 09:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
You deleted the part where my comment was directed. Maybe it was
Germany. I think you wrote that Germany has better strikers and
goalkeeper. So, if England has better defence and central midfield,
then I think it's roughly same talent level.
GERMANY
Better goalkeeper and a better striker (Klose). Ballack is on the same
level as Gerrard and Lampard.
Makes England better in 6 positions.
Sorry, which positions you are now talking about? Lahm worse than Cole?
Podolski worse than England's second striker? Schneider/Odonkor worse
than Beckham/Lennon? Yes, England's centre defence could be said to be
better than Germany's. But the DM of Germany, Frings is IMHO better
than any English player in that position. So in total, Germany, better
two strikers, better goalkeeper, better DM. England, better centre
defenders, better left midfield, better second creative midfielder.
Rest of the positions, pretty equal. All in all, pretty equal.
Post by Benny
ITALY
Better goalkeeper, better strikers and a better DM (Gattuso), Cannavaro
and Nesta and Terry and Ferdinand are equal.
Makes England better in 5 positions (full back positions and across
midfield apart from DM).
Which full backs are better than Zambrotta (IMHO the best full back in
the whole tournament)? Pirlo and Totti, not as good as Lampard and
Gerard? And even with your counting it would be +5 England, +4 Italy,
2 equal. Isn't that roughly equal in your opinion?

So, we have Germany, Italy, France, Argentina, Brazil and possibly
Spain as equal to England. On top of that every tournament has at least
one surprise team that overperforms its talent level. That's 8
quarterfinalists. This time there was also one team (Ukraine) that got
to QFs because they had a very easy 8th final opponent (Swiss playing
very defencive tactic and _not_ practicing penalties beforehand). There
isn't that big difference in skill which decides who plays in semis and
who goes home. Those who go home, are not miserable failures, imho.
Post by Benny
Post by Benny
Everyone sent very strong squads so reaching the final and
winning the tournament was actually a big deal.
No, it's not, because getting to semis is so much easier than in WC,
especially as the other European side was Greece.
The only reason getting to the semis is easier because there are
considerably less matches to play.
And that there were no sides like Italy or France, who took the WC
final spots a year later, defeating on their way the Confed cup
finalists.
Post by Benny
In that case, England has been succesful only twice in all WCs. So, the
coach in all the other WCs was a miserable failure?
It depends on the talent available, something which has clearly not been
lacking for a number of years.
Ok, is England's current talent better than in late 70's or 80's when
English clubs dominated European football at the time when foreign
players were no where near as common as they are now. In '78 they
didn't even qualify. In '82 they went out what can called as QF stage.
In '86 they went out in QF. Only in 1990 they made it to the fourth
spot. In EC they did not make it to the QF stage '76, got out in group
stage (equivalent to QF) in '80, did not qualify to '84 and lost all
their group matches in '88. That's not hugely different from what SGE
got. (On the average, about the same maybe a bit worse, but of course
in your counting of fourth spot being infinitely better than million
QFs, it's different).
Post by Benny
Of course you're not, because it would make you see the weakness of
your argument.
My argument has no weakness.
Yes, it has. Your arrogance just stops you from seeing them. And when
you top up your arrogant comments with direct insults, it doesn't make
you look any better.
Post by Benny
Yes I did and it started with a word "why". I don't see how it's
possible to answer such a question with "yes" especially if the order
of the words is subject-verb-object. Maybe you can help me.
'Why, all or nothing is better than consistent good performance?'
And without the comma, how can you interpret the question in a way that
"yes" can be an answer to it? Shouldn't the word order be different to
make it possible to interpret it as yes-or-no question? What was the
thing, you answered "yes"?

And can I also have the answer to the original question?

Samuli Saarelma
Benny
2006-07-06 14:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Subject : Goodbye Sven, and good riddance
Post by Benny
GERMANY
Better goalkeeper and a better striker (Klose). Ballack is on the same
level as Gerrard and Lampard.
Makes England better in 6 positions.
Sorry, which positions you are now talking about?
See above.
Lahm worse than Cole?
Podolski worse than England's second striker? Schneider/Odonkor worse
than Beckham/Lennon? Yes, England's centre defence could be said to be
better than Germany's. But the DM of Germany, Frings is IMHO better
than any English player in that position. So in total, Germany, better
two strikers, better goalkeeper, better DM. England, better centre
defenders, better left midfield, better second creative midfielder.
Rest of the positions, pretty equal. All in all, pretty equal.
Better based on what? Not based on what the players do week to week.
Which full backs are better than Zambrotta (IMHO the best full back in
the whole tournament)? Pirlo and Totti, not as good as Lampard and
Gerard? And even with your counting it would be +5 England, +4 Italy,
2 equal. Isn't that roughly equal in your opinion?
I would argue Cole is better than Zambrotta, when fit. And no neither
Pirlo or Totti are as good as Gerrard and Lampard, even if they play in
different positions.
So, we have Germany, Italy, France, Argentina, Brazil and possibly
Spain as equal to England.
Wrong again.
And that there were no sides like Italy or France, who took the WC
final spots a year later, defeating on their way the Confed cup
finalists.
Your major problem is you view each tournament in the same way. Italy
and France were an entirely different proposition back then.
Ok, is England's current talent better than in late 70's or 80's when
Yes.
their group matches in '88. That's not hugely different from what SGE
got.
It is massively different. The dominant team of that era was Liverpool
and their best players weren't English.
Yes, it has. Your arrogance just stops you from seeing them. And when
you top up your arrogant comments with direct insults, it doesn't make
you look any better.
What makes you think your opinion is more worthwhile than former England
coaches, players, pundits, journalists and fans like myself who
universally agree that this England team is one of the most talented in
decades and a match for almost any team in the World? It isn't. If
anyone is arrogant it's you. You insist on this stupid view that the
No, you have got me wrong. I have never denied that SGE bears _some_
responsibility of England's doings. Our difference is in the fact that
I put some of the blame on the players too.
Blame them for what? Not performing to their potential, which is the
point most of us are making? You're a SGE apologist and as he showed at
Lazio he is a wretched coach.
And without the comma, how can you interpret the question in a way that
"yes" can be an answer to it?
I ignored your poor punctuation and answered your question. If you want
to continue to be obtuse fine, it doesn't help you in anyway.
And can I also have the answer to the original question?
It would have been answered.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...