Head Honcho Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Here :laugh: What a load of crap... Why is it crap? Instead of having a pool of say 400 English Premier players the number is about 150 if you're lucky. Even when the top English league was full of Scots they had a pool of about 320-350. You can't expect your top teams to be signing foreigners all the time and expect your national team not to suffer. I'm not making excuses for McClaren because I think he's useless but you have to agree with much of what Gibson says.
Joe. Posted 8 February 2007 Author Posted 8 February 2007 Why is it crap? Instead of having a pool of say 400 English Premier players the number is about 150 if you're lucky. Even when the top English league was full of Scots they had a pool of about 320-350. You can't expect your top teams to be signing foreigners all the time and expect your national team not to suffer. I'm not making excuses for McClaren because I think he's useless but you have to agree with much of what he say's. I know what you're trying to say but McClaren still clearly has more than capable players for winning matches. I do believe there should be a limit to the number of foreigners a team has because it will effect the game in years to come but at the moment, like i say, McClaren clearly has a good squad.
lcfc_jme Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 I know what you're trying to say but McClaren still clearly has more than capable players for winning matches. Spot on. Whether you believe the number of foreigners per team should be limited or not, you look at the players available to McClaren and England, and you see a pool of players that are World Class - more than capable of winning trophies at the highest level.
Matt Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Read threads about Arsenal and me moaning about the amount of foreigners in there side. I have made the comment that they (and other clubs, Its not just Arsenal, but I hate Arsenal so blame Arsenal) are to blame for one of the reason's England are crap! It made me laugh when just before (maybe during) the world cup Arsene Wenger came out and said Walcott should play for England...At that time he hadn't even played in the Premiership, So whats Arsene Wenger saying? Walcotts good enough to play for England but not Arsenal? And even now Walcott isn't playing many games he is just warming the bench (If that) most of the time. Having said all that, Sack McClaren anyway.
Head Honcho Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Spot on. Whether you believe the number of foreigners per team should be limited or not, you look at the players available to McClaren and England, and you see a pool of players that are World Class - more than capable of winning trophies at the highest level. A very small pool........... .............and thereby lies the problem! There is hardly any competition for places and the player are strolling around on the pitch. They are good club players but when it comes to playing international football they lose the plot. Bring back Beckham
lildave3 Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Read threads about Arsenal and me moaning about the amount of foreigners in there side. I have made the comment that they (and other clubs, Its not just Arsenal, but I hate Arsenal so blame Arsenal) are to blame for one of the reason's England are crap! It made me laugh when just before (maybe during) the world cup Arsene Wenger came out and said Walcott should play for England...At that time he hadn't even played in the Premiership, So whats Arsene Wenger saying? Walcotts good enough to play for England but not Arsenal? And even now Walcott isn't playing many games he is just warming the bench (If that) most of the time. Having said all that, Sack McClaren anyway. I agree with that word for word. Especially the blame Arsenal bit
Head Honcho Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 Read threads about Arsenal and me moaning about the amount of foreigners in there side. I have made the comment that they (and other clubs, Its not just Arsenal, but I hate Arsenal so blame Arsenal) are to blame for one of the reason's England are crap! It made me laugh when just before (maybe during) the world cup Arsene Wenger came out and said Walcott should play for England...At that time he hadn't even played in the Premiership, So whats Arsene Wenger saying? Walcotts good enough to play for England but not Arsenal? And even now Walcott isn't playing many games he is just warming the bench (If that) most of the time. Having said all that, Sack McClaren anyway. ..........but Arsenal are better than England aren't they?
Geo V Posted 8 February 2007 Posted 8 February 2007 It wasnt long ago that we had all these centre halves that had no pace and couldnt pass the ball but were great in the air. Our midfielders didnt possess a great touch apart from a few and thinsg like physical shape and food/drink consumption was all over the place as players didnt look after themselves. Its the foreigners who came over that has changed all of that IMO. Our players have got quicker, they have better touch and they have become more complete players. Tactically they are more aware having worked under the best foreign coaches and things like diet are at scientic levels within clubs. We now have quality if not quantity. The problem lies that our players play far too many games, our coaching at national level is pants and has been for years, the media has too much say in what goes on, our national players dont care about the national team as much as they used too and ultimate, they have little confidence because of the pressure we and the media have put them under to succeed. We almost expect to win. BTW, one final comment is that we cant take penos and that goes toward the reasons why we arent as succesful too!
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Offer Barcelona or Real Fat Frank, Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, John Terry, Rio Ferdinand, Ashley Cole or Joe Cole and they'd bite your hand off. This rubbish about the players not being good enough is crap. Even Brazil would suffer from having the amount of first teamers out that we did. Theres having depth but having upwards of 15 first team/reserve players out is going to hurt any one. The team we put out was second rate to start off with and played very poorly thanks to crap tatics and man mangement skills from a manager out of his depth, but Spain had most of their first team and they didn't look much better than us. The players we produce are more than good enough to perform at the top level they've proved that in European competitions and some of them have even done it for England from time to time, Lampards goal ratio from midfield is 1 in 4 which is still outstanding for a midfielder for example.
The People's Hero Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 There are just too many international games. It's not an event anymore. An example is that I can rarely be bothered to watch England any more. It's not what it was to the players and it's not what it was to the fans.
hairy Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 There are just too many international games. It's not an event anymore. An example is that I can rarely be bothered to watch England any more. It's not what it was to the players and it's not what it was to the fans. I am not sure its the quantity of matches. As my memory serves me friendlies used to be good before Sven. Sven made too many substitutions in friendlies and they have never recovered since. On top of that we have had nothing to cheer about.
Filbert_Ross Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Even Brazil would suffer from having the amount of first teamers out that we did. Theres having depth but having upwards of 15 first team/reserve players out is going to hurt any one. thats counts for wednesday, what about the crap at the world cup, crap all the way through qualifiers, crap in all the other friendlys we play.
Geo V Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 The last time I can remember England playing well as a team was in Euro 96 and we were at home. Since then we either havent qualified or when we do we just look so knackered its unreal. Sven spotted that quite early and at one stage talked of a winter break but that didnt happen. I know we have foriegn players over here who play in our tough premiership but do OK in interntionals (ie France winning WC) but Greece won the Euro`s and Brazil the WC in-between and neither have that many players playing in Britain. Not only do we have a 20 team Premier division we have the FA Cup which most take seriously (although some clubs have messed about with selections in recent years) and on top of that we have the League Cup which has also seen the big clubs playing there best players (including Man Utd who got KO`ed player Rooney and Ronaldo at Southend) but Arsenal seem to be set in playing reserves and they hardly have any English players! If you add to that, that we always seem to have 4 sides in the Champions League KO stages and now have good sides in the UEFA, it all proves to be IMO too many games. BTW I cant remember the stat exactly but Im sure Steve Gerrard played something like 60 matches last season and that was before the World Cup. Its too many games!
Lineker's Left Foot Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Steve Gibson's a good bloke according to my mate - really nice chap. I think Gibson has a point, but not sure why he's moaning at Liverpool, considering they consistently play Carragher, Gerrard and Crouch; whilst Pennant isn't a million miles away from the England team. However, Wenger at Arsenal is an a*se hole, even Chelski play England players!!
hairy Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 The last time I can remember England playing well as a team was in Euro 96 and we were at home. Since then we either havent qualified or when we do we just look so knackered its unreal. We have qualified for everything since USA. I recall a very good team performance when we beat the Germans 5-1.
Manwell Pablo Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 thats counts for wednesday, what about the crap at the world cup, crap all the way through qualifiers, crap in all the other friendlys we play. How many times we're we actually geniunly crap though? Svens record in qualifers was very good. The English sometimes seem to think we have a divine right to beat everyone six nill, and if we don't win every game by a massive scoreline, we're crap. For every dissapointing result under Sven you could probably point out a good one, we battered Iceland and Jamica 6-0 under him and we beat Argentina in a freindly and in Japan as well as the 3-0 turning over of a very capable Denmark side, and of course there was the 5-1 in against Germany. I think we we're very unlucky in 2004 agains France and Portugal and we were we showed what a good team we can be against Croatia and Switzerland. We were shocking at the World Cup but then Sven ballsed up his selection by taking to much shit and not enough strikers. He tried to play players who were cleary not up to it as they had only just got back from injury,Owen, Rooney, and Ashley Cole. But then did we actually lose a game? No we didn't. Sven made mistakes and there were loads of things he could of done better but he was competent enough to get us to three consecutive quarter finals. If McClaren is a better manager surely we should be doing much better? Truth is he isn't Svens a better manager than McClaren, we should of employed O'Neil or Alladyce.
davieG Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 The last time I can remember England playing well as a team was in Euro 96 and we were at home. Since then we either havent qualified or when we do we just look so knackered its unreal. Sven spotted that quite early and at one stage talked of a winter break but that didnt happen.I know we have foriegn players over here who play in our tough premiership but do OK in interntionals (ie France winning WC) but Greece won the Euro`s and Brazil the WC in-between and neither have that many players playing in Britain. Not only do we have a 20 team Premier division we have the FA Cup which most take seriously (although some clubs have messed about with selections in recent years) and on top of that we have the League Cup which has also seen the big clubs playing there best players (including Man Utd who got KO`ed player Rooney and Ronaldo at Southend) but Arsenal seem to be set in playing reserves and they hardly have any English players! If you add to that, that we always seem to have 4 sides in the Champions League KO stages and now have good sides in the UEFA, it all proves to be IMO too many games. BTW I cant remember the stat exactly but Im sure Steve Gerrard played something like 60 matches last season and that was before the World Cup. Its too many games! Since the 60's we've mostly had 22 teams in the top league, the FA Cup, with I might add a full set of replays, the League Cup, both of which contained full first team players. What's messed it up is the misnamed Champions League which has added unnecessary games for the top four teams and the expanded UEFA Cup (formerly the Cup Winners Cup) for 3 or more teams, not forgetting the laughable Intertoto Cup for the next bunch of also rans. The problem of too many games can be laid entirely at the door of EUFA. That's the problem and therein lies the solution cut out all the crap from those EURO comps and we're back to a reasonably/manageable level. It wont happen of course because all these diverse organisations FIFA, UEFA, The FA, The Premier League and The Football League and their administrators have their own agenda's to make money are all on the gravy train that is Professional Football.
Geo V Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 Steve Gibson's a good bloke according to my mate - really nice chap. I think Gibson has a point, but not sure why he's moaning at Liverpool, considering they consistently play Carragher, Gerrard and Crouch; whilst Pennant isn't a million miles away from the England team. However, Wenger at Arsenal is an a*se hole, even Chelski play England players!! I dont get what Gibson is going on about as he has hardly helped supply the country with quality English players has he?! Despite being known as a great chairman, he should learn to shut up when having ago at other clubs as he was one of the first chairman to bring in 3 big foreign players and pay crazy wages when he got Ravenelli, Juninho and Emerson in during there successful period. He has also been guilty of avoiding spending money on English talent and has wasted £7m on the likes of Maccarone (3 years later free transfered back to Italy) along with filling his squad with the likes of Pogatetz, Huth, Mendieta, Rochemback, Viduka, Yakubu, Boatang, Xavier, Arca etc etc. Maybe he thinks that if a player has played in the Premiership for ages that they are classed as English ???! In his squad the only regular English players that Middlesboro have started include Woodgate who is on loan from Real and Downing and Cattermole who came through the ranks. He then has a few bit part players in his squad included Jason Euell, Morrison, Parnaby and Riggott along with Davies who has been playing in place of the injured Huth. If all players were available for selection Middlesbro wouldnt start with more than 2 English lads!! What is Gibbo on about???
Matt Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 A thing that made me laugh on Wednesday, I think Motson said "This won't be the team/squad thats involved in the qualifiers next month"...if thats the case whats the point in friendlies? I always thought is was to try/look a new players or see what squad you will pick for the competative matches. I was obviously wrong!
lookwhaticando Posted 9 February 2007 Posted 9 February 2007 There are just too many international games. It's not an event anymore. An example is that I can rarely be bothered to watch England any more. It's not what it was to the players and it's not what it was to the fans. Yes. Yes. Yes. The qualifiers are mostly pointless (although we still manage to make a drama out of it... somehow). Even some of the early rounds in the actual competitions are pretty staid. The friendlies are absolutely bollocking pointless. The only time I bother to watch England is when we get into the first knock-out stage of a competition, or alternatively if there's a decent sounding game in the group stages (Sweden at the WC last year, for one). Other than that... what's the point? I don't fancy watching us bundle six past some farmers who live on the side of some bloody hill that nobody's every verified as a country by visiting it themselves. I also don't fancy watching a game of musical substitutes, watching multitudes of second and third string players being rotated around on the field by a red-faced manager of the highest ineptitude. Give us something worth watching.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.