England v Scotland

[hogesar 9,618]

3 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Because we played **** as an overall team whereas Scotland played much better with much more cohesion? We played a 4/10 and Scotland played a 8/10. And we still drew the game. 

Didn't we out play Man City when we beat them 3-2? Are we man for man better than Man City too then? Or would you agree that a single match probably isn’t that conclusive a sample size for which team has the better individual players? 

Great minds and all that, didnt read this before replying myself!

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

On 19/06/2021 at 13:23, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Honestly some of the posts on this thread have been so wide of the mark. Trying to compare a handful of Scottish players with English players, picking out the best Scottish ones and comparing them with the worst English ones. Like come on, the only Scottish players who definitely get in to our 26 are Robertson and McTominay. The only player who gets into our first 11 is Robertson.

 

 

On 19/06/2021 at 13:43, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Clutching at straws. Robertson gets in, McTominay gets in. Tierney does not get in ahead of Shaw and Chillwell but I agree he’s a good player and possibly close to the 26. 

 

On 19/06/2021 at 14:42, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Left back 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 1. Robertson

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 2. Shaw

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 3. Chillwell 

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 4. Tierney 

 

On 19/06/2021 at 09:04, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Robertson and McTominay are the only players who get in our squad. I like McGinn too but he’d probably miss out just like players such as Ward-Prowse and Lingaard have for us. Adams and O’Donnell also played really well last night but Adams would not be ahead of Kane, DCL, Watkins, Bamford, Ings for England. And O’Donnell over James, TAA, Walker, Trippier, Wan-Bassaka? How many beverages did you have last night?

@chicken just the four times…

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

I was watching the horse racing on ITV yesterday afternoon and Mick Channon was being interviewed, after talking about his horse they asked him about the England v Scotland game, he basically said that despite the result England have qualified from the group stage and we should move on, however he also said that England are full of class individuals, but we have not got a team and until we start playing as a team we do not have any chance of winning the Euros.......totally agree with what he said........

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

The problem with this England team is that they are thick as two short planks. Not a brain between them and not a captain in sight. The best England team I've ever seen was in 1990. There were intelligent and motivational players throughout the team and they had talent. The only one without a brain was Paul Gascoigne and let's face it, England hasn't got a player of his ability at the moment. 

Harry Kane obviously has talent but he's not exactly a Duncan Forbes or Grant Holt in the captaincy stakes. Roy Keane said as much on tv on Friday which was the first time I've ever heard him say anything I agreed with. 

[chicken 2,604]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

1) seem totally incapable of reading anything I’ve written. 

2) And yes I already addressed your comments in my precious posts- you don’t think the gap between the two sides is that big- but you concede England are better.

3) Scotland offer competition at left back and defensive centre mid with Robertson, Tierney and McTominay but nowhere else on the pitch! 

1) so do you.

2) No you haven't. I said it wasn't as big as some are arguing. Lets put it this way, some folks are saying the gap is say, equivalent to Man City and Crew Alexander. And that Scotland overachieved against an underachieving England - which is incredibly disingenuous IMHO.

However, I also said that the gap is not as big as it has been - that is undeniable. As little as 4-5 years ago, we wouldn't be discussing ANY Scottish players being even close to the England squad let alone making it. So either the Scottish have got better, England have got worse or a bit of both - ergo the gap is not as big as some people are making it out to be.

Again, another example. Even on a good day Luxembourg would struggle to draw with an underperforming England team.

I would still put McGinn in there as a squad player. I don't think he is that far off some of our players.

[chicken 2,604]

32 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The problem with this England team is that they are thick as two short planks. Not a brain between them and not a captain in sight. The best England team I've ever seen was in 1990. There were intelligent and motivational players throughout the team and they had talent. The only one without a brain was Paul Gascoigne and let's face it, England hasn't got a player of his ability at the moment. 

Harry Kane obviously has talent but he's not exactly a Duncan Forbes or Grant Holt in the captaincy stakes. Roy Keane said as much on tv on Friday which was the first time I've ever heard him say anything I agreed with. 

I agree with this, but I also don't think we have any genuine standout world class players at the moment. Even Kane, compare him to some of the other international strikers out there.

I was 8 for '90, so don't remember that especially well. I remember '96 and the team ethic was fantastic. I also remember some of the teams of the 2000's and early 2010's... Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Beckham, Ledley King, Shearer, Owen, Sol Campbell, G. Neville, Seaman, Robinson, Hart, James, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry... I just don't see the players we have in the current squad as good as them yet.

We are missing a player who can genuinely turn a game. Bale, Christiano Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Mbappe, Pogba etc. The closest we have right now is Sterling, who looks a shadow of his former self or Kane, who at times can look pretty ordinary. 

[chicken 2,604]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

@chicken just the four times…

Still missing the point, but by all means, keep going.

Also, I would have Adams ahead of Bamford and just off Ings. He has pace which neither of those really possess and I feel Bamford is playing in a very good side and is doing well because of that. I don't think he offers anything that Kane or DCL can't offer, in fact he offers a lot less IMHO. Ings is a bit of an enigma, no doubt a PL level player, but never quite made it as an elite PL striker for a top club. Adams and Watkins are very similar in terms of where they are in their careers, they could become even better than they currently are. This coming season will determine what heights they can hit I believe.

[king canary 7,578]

This twitter thread is probably the best analysis of what happened v Scotland

https://twitter.com/draper_rob/status/1406579403748950018?s=19

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

54 minutes ago, chicken said:

I agree with this, but I also don't think we have any genuine standout world class players at the moment. Even Kane, compare him to some of the other international strikers out there.

I was 8 for '90, so don't remember that especially well. I remember '96 and the team ethic was fantastic. I also remember some of the teams of the 2000's and early 2010's... Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Beckham, Ledley King, Shearer, Owen, Sol Campbell, G. Neville, Seaman, Robinson, Hart, James, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry... I just don't see the players we have in the current squad as good as them yet.

We are missing a player who can genuinely turn a game. Bale, Christiano Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Mbappe, Pogba etc. The closest we have right now is Sterling, who looks a shadow of his former self or Kane, who at times can look pretty ordinary. 

Couldn't agree more. It could be very embarrassing in the knock out stages. The players you mention had a mentality that none of the current crop seems to possess 

Edited June 20, 2021 by dylanisabaddog

[hogesar 9,618]

40 minutes ago, king canary said:

This twitter thread is probably the best analysis of what happened v Scotland

https://twitter.com/draper_rob/status/1406579403748950018?s=19

Cheers, just read through.

England were really poor, Scotland were good, for them, but clearly lack quality in almost all areas. A decent team would have beat us.

Because its England, people go a bit over the top. It was one game, and we have plenty of different players, all top quality champions league level players. Sancho didnt even get a minute against Scotland, for example.

Good performance Tuesday and its coming home again!

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

1) so do you.

2) No you haven't. I said it wasn't as big as some are arguing. Lets put it this way, some folks are saying the gap is say, equivalent to Man City and Crew Alexander. And that Scotland overachieved against an underachieving England - which is incredibly disingenuous IMHO.

However, I also said that the gap is not as big as it has been - that is undeniable. As little as 4-5 years ago, we wouldn't be discussing ANY Scottish players being even close to the England squad let alone making it. So either the Scottish have got better, England have got worse or a bit of both - ergo the gap is not as big as some people are making it out to be.

Again, another example. Even on a good day Luxembourg would struggle to draw with an underperforming England team.

I would still put McGinn in there as a squad player. I don't think he is that far off some of our players.

On 19/06/2021 at 13:23, Hank shoots Skyler said:

You guys on this thread are bonkers thinking this Scotland side are neck in neck with England. Scotland are at best a middle of the road prem side, this England team in the prem you would expect to be competing for the league. 

See above quote.

As shown, I have already stated that I believe Scotland are at best a middle of the road prem side, so where one earth are you pulling Crewe Alexander from!? Are you trying to debate this with me or someone else?!

So yes I agree that the gulf between the sides is not as big as Man City and Crewe Alexander. 

I also agree with you that Scotland are closer to England than they were a few seasons ago, I already said this to you a few posts back.

There we go we have lots of common ground on this. 

What my point was and continues to be is that there is a huge gulf in quality between the sides - just like there is (as a very rough example) between say a Crystal Palace with a Man City. I would also say that's a favourable ranking for Scotland as they have players like O'Donnell, Hanley, McLean and Dykes as regulars with absolutely zero strength in depth. However you could also argue Robertson, Tierney, McTominay, McGinn boost them back up a bit - but really without those 4 they'd be a top-end championship side. 

On McGinn - he is a very likeable player and one I'd absolutely love at Norwich. He'd probably be a name talked about for an England squad of 26 and play a little (like Lingaard and Ward-Prowse most recently) but he'd also probably not get in ahead of all of the other English players as I mentioned in my ranking.

[ncfcstar 287]

On 19/06/2021 at 09:18, daly said:

Egg

Face

🤷‍♂️ 

Was hardly an outrageous prediction, poor England performance and a Scotland team set up to stop England playing.

[chicken 2,604]

13 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

See above quote.

As shown, I have already stated that I believe Scotland are at best a middle of the road prem side, so where one earth are you pulling Crewe Alexander from!? Are you trying to debate this with me or someone else?!

So yes I agree that the gulf between the sides is not as big as Man City and Crewe Alexander. 

I also agree with you that Scotland are closer to England than they were a few seasons ago, I already said this to you a few posts back.

There we go we have lots of common ground on this. 

What my point was and continues to be is that there is a huge gulf in quality between the sides - just like there is (as a very rough example) between say a Crystal Palace with a Man City. I would also say that's a favourable ranking for Scotland as they have players like O'Donnell, Hanley, McLean and Dykes as regulars with absolutely zero strength in depth. However you could also argue Robertson, Tierney, McTominay, McGinn boost them back up a bit - but really without those 4 they'd be a top-end championship side. 

On McGinn - he is a very likeable player and one I'd absolutely love at Norwich. He'd probably be a name talked about for an England squad of 26 and play a little (like Lingaard and Ward-Prowse most recently) but he'd also probably not get in ahead of all of the other English players as I mentioned in my ranking.

I think I'd give Scotland a little more credit than being Crystal Palace if honest. Especially when you look at the teams some of those players are in. Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea - all finished above Palace.

Then you add the likes of Southampton and Newcastle, now Norwich too. Also Rangers and Celtic, who have prem teams in for players like Christie.

Personally I would say they are better than Palace. Palace are essentially a team of has-beens and past their best players. Earlier this transfer window someone pointed out the players out of contract at palace this summer. I think there was a list of 9-10, only one was under 30.

Compare that to a Scotland side which is on the up - Robertson is 27, Tierney 24, Gilmour is 20, McTominay is 24, Adams is 24, McGinn is 25. You can add Dykes who is 25 too. 

I think you are talking much more about a mid table side than one that perennially struggles for survival with a squad of overpaid, some would say, overrated players.

 

[king canary 7,578]

12 minutes ago, chicken said:

I think I'd give Scotland a little more credit than being Crystal Palace if honest. Especially when you look at the teams some of those players are in. Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea - all finished above Palace.

Then you add the likes of Southampton and Newcastle, now Norwich too. Also Rangers and Celtic, who have prem teams in for players like Christie.

Personally I would say they are better than Palace. Palace are essentially a team of has-beens and past their best players. Earlier this transfer window someone pointed out the players out of contract at palace this summer. I think there was a list of 9-10, only one was under 30.

Compare that to a Scotland side which is on the up - Robertson is 27, Tierney 24, Gilmour is 20, McTominay is 24, Adams is 24, McGinn is 25. You can add Dykes who is 25 too. 

I think you are talking much more about a mid table side than one that perennially struggles for survival with a squad of overpaid, some would say, overrated players.

 

Nah, Palace is pretty generous if I'm honest.

Any Premier League team going into the season with David Marshall (very nearly relegated to League One), Lyndon Dykes (12 Championship goals which is easily the best season of his career) and Stephen O'Donnell (journeyman right back with a mid table Scottish team) as key starters would likely struggle to beat relegation and that is before you get into the depth options.

 

 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

This is the best Scottish team for many a year I really don't get the surprise or indignation they got a result against England. Their weakness is they are very inept upfront and won't score enough. 

McGinn is a very good player and would get into the England side as well as most EPL teams.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

Nah, Palace is pretty generous if I'm honest.

Any Premier League team going into the season with David Marshall (very nearly relegated to League One), Lyndon Dykes (12 Championship goals which is easily the best season of his career) and Stephen O'Donnell (journeyman right back with a mid table Scottish team) as key starters would likely struggle to beat relegation and that is before you get into the depth options.

Yep that's how I see it. Bonus points for Robertson, McTominay, Tierney, but minus points for nearly every other player on the pitch plus the total lack of options from the bench. 

But the example did also feature England as Man City - which is probably a little generous too...

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

22 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

McGinn is a very good player and would get into the England side as well as most EPL teams.

Who would you drop out of the 26 though? 

I like McGinn a lot, he's the kind of player I think every fan would love in their team - but is he really knocking any of our current 26 out of the ranking? 

IMO he'd be in the frame, sort of like James Ward-Prowse, Jesse Lingaard, James Maddison etc - but he'd probably just fall short of the final 26.  

[king canary 7,578]

3 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Yep that's how I see it. Bonus points for Robertson, McTominay, Tierney, but minus points for nearly every other player on the pitch plus the total lack of options from the bench. 

But the example did also feature England as Man City - which is probably a little generous too...

Yep. Also worth adding that despite all the bigging up of Scotland since this game, that they've not scored a goal yet. McGinn is creative player, Adams is a workhorse but if we're honest Dykes is an utter donkey and if he is the best they have then they're going to struggle. 

 

[FatCanary 249]

I've heard a lot of people saying it was a sh1t game.

England being poor and Scotland executing a great game plan does not make it a sh1t game.

 

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yep. Also worth adding that despite all the bigging up of Scotland since this game, that they've not scored a goal yet. McGinn is creative player, Adams is a workhorse but if we're honest Dykes is an utter donkey and if he is the best they have then they're going to struggle. 

 

This I agree with though. Dykes is a mid tier Championship number 9, no surprise he's struggling against good defenders.

[FatCanary 249]

It's funny how many people have this inextricable link between enjoying the Euros and how good England are.

I get that with Norwich, I hardly watch MOTD/Quest when we've lost, I just decided long ago not to let England spoil major tournaments for me. On talent, England are as good as any team in the tournament.

Sadly, on tactics, they're going out in the semis if they make it that far. Hard to see even that really, with France, Belgium, Italy and Germany looking better than England at this stage.

[king canary 7,578]

3 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

I've heard a lot of people saying it was a sh1t game.

England being poor and Scotland executing a great game plan does not make it a sh1t game.

 

This I agree with though. Dykes is a mid tier Championship number 9, no surprise he's struggling against good defenders.

It was a pretty **** game to watch, not just from an England perspective too- I can't imagine neutrals were salivating over it.

It mainly reminded me of the first season under Farke here- lots of possession, no cutting edge and no energy to create chances. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

25 minutes ago, FatCanary said:

It's funny how many people have this inextricable link between enjoying the Euros and how good England are.

I get that with Norwich, I hardly watch MOTD/Quest when we've lost, I just decided long ago not to let England spoil major tournaments for me. On talent, England are as good as any team in the tournament.

Sadly, on tactics, they're going out in the semis if they make it that far. Hard to see even that really, with France, Belgium, Italy and Germany looking better than England at this stage.

They won't make it that far. Quarters at best. If the Germany that turned up against Portugal face that England side, you're looking at the 2010 World Cup again. I have said I maintain Belgium are a better team but England could get at their defence, but with De Bruyne and Lukaku in their team, they can DEFINITELY get at the English defence.

[FatCanary 249]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

They won't make it that far. Quarters at best. If the Germany that turned up against Portugal face that England side, you're looking at the 2010 World Cup again. I have said I maintain Belgium are a better team but England could get at their defence, but with De Bruyne and Lukaku in their team, they can DEFINITELY get at the English defence.

Largely agree with this.

On talent alone though, I do feel England are the best side in it, and that's saying something.

In international football the first thing you do is drill the defensive shape, which leaves you not much time for the attacking shape. Therefore, international matches are often devoid of elite attacking interplay and more reliant on individual ingenuity.

I like Southgate, but he restricts talent.

It's not a hot take by any stretch of the imagination, but being reactive rather than proactive with this level of talent is a waste and I hope we see the shackles off against the Czechs.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Just now, FatCanary said:

Largely agree with this.

On talent alone though, I do feel England are the best side in it, and that's saying something.

In international football the first thing you do is drill the defensive shape, which leaves you not much time for the attacking shape. Therefore, international matches are often devoid of elite attacking interplay and more reliant on individual ingenuity.

I like Southgate, but he restricts talent.

It's not a hot take by any stretch of the imagination, but being reactive rather than proactive with this level of talent is a waste and I hope we see the shackles off against the Czechs.

Regarding the bit in bold, I don't. I really don't. I accept that missing two seasoned international heads in Maguire and Henderson with the lack of depth in those two positions will make Southgate a bit more cautious, and let's face it, England defensively had some shockers during the qualifiers in what was frankly a downright facile group - even that 4-0 win away to Kosovo was hardly a sovereign performance as the Kosovans caused trouble, then there was the 5-3 where some of the defending wouldn't have looked out of place at Moss Bank Park. Then the Czechs planted the first qualifying defeat in ten years on that team.

This tournament's come a bit early for some of the young guns for me. I'd think they've a better chance in the WC next year, particularly as that will be in December 2022 so not at the end of a tiring season for them.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

16 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Regarding the bit in bold, I don't. I really don't. I accept that missing two seasoned international heads in Maguire and Henderson with the lack of depth in those two positions will make Southgate a bit more cautious, and let's face it, England defensively had some shockers during the qualifiers in what was frankly a downright facile group - even that 4-0 win away to Kosovo was hardly a sovereign performance as the Kosovans caused trouble, then there was the 5-3 where some of the defending wouldn't have looked out of place at Moss Bank Park. Then the Czechs planted the first qualifying defeat in ten years on that team.

This tournament's come a bit early for some of the young guns for me. I'd think they've a better chance in the WC next year, particularly as that will be in December 2022 so not at the end of a tiring season for them.

You appear to be measuring England's talent based purely on England's performances - yet nearly everyone on this thread agrees that they are underperforming as a unit, so its not a stick to beat the level of 'talent' with at all IMO.

As was shown in the discussion on Friday night, the domestic performances and status of our individual players - all the way through the 26 - indicates we should be right up there with the best of the sides. 

Belgium as an example have had a very similar problem in recent years, their 'golden generation' of players, ranked no.1 in the world, but rarely have we seen them play to the sum of their parts in a major tournament- the only good run they've had ended in the semis via Wales at the last World Cup! Absolutely nothing to show for a plethora of talent in their side.

They, like us, just don't have the knack of winning, we are both Spursy as hell. Whereas teams like Italy / Germany are more like the Chelseas or Liverpools who can come out on top despite the odds being against them (very rough comparison). 

That doesn't mean the teams aren't full of talent, it just means we don't have the right mental strength / belief.

Maybe if we fluked our way to an easier semi-final and easier final in 2018 we might be a different looking side now... 😄 

And FWIW I wouldn't agree that we have the best players in the Euros, as the French team clearly does IMO, but certainly we are in the top 3-4 sides based on talent alone.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

You appear to be measuring England's talent based purely on England's performances - yet nearly everyone on this thread agrees that they are underperforming as a unit, so its not a stick to beat the level of 'talent' with at all IMO.

As was shown in the discussion on Friday night, the domestic performances and status of our individual players - all the way through the 26 - indicates we should be right up there with the best of the sides. 

Belgium as an example have had a very similar problem in recent years, their 'golden generation' of players, ranked no.1 in the world, but rarely have we seen them play to the sum of their parts in a major tournament- the only good run they've had ended in the semis via Wales at the last World Cup! Absolutely nothing to show for a plethora of talent in their side.

They, like us, just don't have the knack of winning, we are both Spursy as hell. Whereas teams like Italy / Germany are more like the Chelseas or Liverpools who can come out on top despite the odds being against them (very rough comparison). 

That doesn't mean the teams aren't full of talent, it just means we don't have the right mental strength / belief.

Maybe if we fluked our way to an easier semi-final and easier final in 2018 we might be a different looking side now... 😄 

And FWIW I wouldn't agree that we have the best players in the Euros, as the French team clearly does IMO, but certainly we are in the top 3-4 sides based on talent alone.

The bit in bold is why we disagree. I do sort of agree that there could be a mental strength issue as ultimately winning is a habit, but I'd say there are three more prosaic explanations for why England don't do as well as many seem to think they can:

1. Many of the players are somewhat overrated. No-one's said they're crap, they're just a little bit short of being genuinely top-tier / world class in many cases. To use a boxing term, I see a lot of gatekeepers, but very few champions. And I suspect many are somewhat overrated simply as we see them most of the time, and see far less of the rivals.

2. There's often a lot of talent, but with the result that there's a naturally very imbalanced team. If you were to ask me where the real class in English football lies right now, I'd say attacking midfield and right-back. I'd say they are somewhat short in goal, centre-half, defensive midfield and there could be a depth issue up top. In other words, there's a relative weakness in the spine of the team. Very hard to build around that, and I don't blame a manager for being more cautious when confronted with such imbalances.

3. Fatigue. If the Premier League / Championship are not the most physically arduous major national leagues in Europe, I'm hard-pushed to think what is. Throw in the end of a congested, Covid-affected season, and you're more likely to get leggy performances.

I think much of this boils down to people erroneously conflating the strength of a Premier League - with a very high proportion of foreign players - with the strength of the national side.

[king canary 7,578]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The bit in bold is why we disagree. I do sort of agree that there could be a mental strength issue as ultimately winning is a habit, but I'd say there are three more prosaic explanations for why England don't do as well as many seem to think they can:

1. Many of the players are somewhat overrated. No-one's said they're crap, they're just a little bit short of being genuinely top-tier / world class in many cases. To use a boxing term, I see a lot of gatekeepers, but very few champions. And I suspect many are somewhat overrated simply as we see them most of the time, and see far less of the rivals.

2. There's often a lot of talent, but with the result that there's a naturally very imbalanced team. If you were to ask me where the real class in English football lies right now, I'd say attacking midfield and right-back. I'd say they are somewhat short in goal, centre-half, defensive midfield and there could be a depth issue up top. In other words, there's a relative weakness in the spine of the team. Very hard to build around that, and I don't blame a manager for being more cautious when confronted with such imbalances.

3. Fatigue. If the Premier League / Championship are not the most physically arduous major national leagues in Europe, I'm hard-pushed to think what is. Throw in the end of a congested, Covid-affected season, and you're more likely to get leggy performances.

I think much of this boils down to people erroneously conflating the strength of a Premier League - with a very high proportion of foreign players - with the strength of the national side.

I don't disagree but I'd also suggest this applies to pretty much every team that isn't France.

Take Belgium for example. Excellent creativity in De Bruyne, Meertens and Hazard (even if he's been poor for two years at Madrid) and one of the best strikers in the world though. The defence though, bit meh. 34 year old Vertonghen, Alderweirald not a guaranteed starter at a poor Spurs team and Denayer, playing for the 4th best team in France. Wing backs are both bit part players at Dortmund. Decent players but not many stars in there.

Similar situation at Portugal- fullbacks aren't all that, 38 year old Pepe still a regular starter, Carvalheo and Pereira both fairly average central midfielders.

What England do lack in my opinion is a superstar attacker to build the team around, who you can rely on take a game by the scruff of the neck, in the way Ronaldo does for Portugal or De Bruyne can for Belgium. Kane hasn't ever been that type of player and it does lead to us overhyping players like Grealish. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I don't disagree but I'd also suggest this applies to pretty much every team that isn't France.

Take Belgium for example. Excellent creativity in De Bruyne, Meertens and Hazard (even if he's been poor for two years at Madrid) and one of the best strikers in the world though. The defence though, bit meh. 34 year old Vertonghen, Alderweirald not a guaranteed starter at a poor Spurs team and Denayer, playing for the 4th best team in France. Wing backs are both bit part players at Dortmund. Decent players but not many stars in there.

Similar situation at Portugal- fullbacks aren't all that, 38 year old Pepe still a regular starter, Carvalheo and Pereira both fairly average central midfielders.

What England do lack in my opinion is a superstar attacker to build the team around, who you can rely on take a game by the scruff of the neck, in the way Ronaldo does for Portugal or De Bruyne can for Belgium. Kane hasn't ever been that type of player and it does lead to us overhyping players like Grealish. 

To some extent, sure - but not to the same extent, particularly the last one, assuming we all agree that the English league is more congested and physically more arduous to play in considering the number of games / cups and also the speed/physicality at which it is played.

I see Portugal a bit differently in terms of talent. Bruno Fernandes and Joao Felix might not be stars in the Ronaldo mould, but they're talented enough to be star players in their own right in most teams, indeed Fernandes already does that at United. Pepe's still a good centre-half at 38 and let's face it, Ruben Dias showed himself to be a star centre-half at Manchester City this season. I'd also say Spurs is more of a poorly managed team than a poor team, not to mention Vertonghen and Alderweireld together are a Belgian pairing which are together inherently more than the sum of their parts. You can also say the same of veterans Bonucci and Chiellini for Italy and Juventus - not to mention Chiellini is 36. That leads me to a different matter, namely the notion of partnering players from the same club. I'd argue that Sterling and Foden should be paired up as obviously they know each other's games intimately. In the medium term, if Pickford remains England's number 1, I'd expect to see Godfrey knocking on the door for similar reasons. In other words, partnerships may supersede individual talent to the benefit of a national team.

Denayer plays for the fourth best team in France. Pickford and Mings play for mid-table Premier League sides.

Agree with the last bit, and I think there's a cogent argument that Grealish or Foden could become that player in the not-too-distant future, particularly Foden. (I think Gilmour might beat them all though from the bits I've seen though. He looks a really complete deep-lying playmaker who is rock-solid in possession).

[king canary 7,578]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

To some extent, sure - but not to the same extent, particularly the last one, assuming we all agree that the English league is more congested and physically more arduous to play in considering the number of games / cups and also the speed/physicality at which it is played.

I see Portugal a bit differently in terms of talent. Bruno Fernandes and Joao Felix might not be stars in the Ronaldo mould, but they're talented enough to be star players in their own right in most teams, indeed Fernandes already does that at United. Pepe's still a good centre-half at 38 and let's face it, Ruben Dias showed himself to be a star centre-half at Manchester City this season. I'd also say Spurs is more of a poorly managed team than a poor team, not to mention Vertonghen and Alderweireld together are a Belgian pairing which are together inherently more than the sum of their parts. You can also say the same of veterans Bonucci and Chiellini for Italy and Juventus - not to mention Chiellini is 36. That leads me to a different matter, namely the notion of partnering players from the same club. I'd argue that Sterling and Foden should be paired up as obviously they know each other's games intimately. In the medium term, if Pickford remains England's number 1, I'd expect to see Godfrey knocking on the door for similar reasons. In other words, partnerships may supersede individual talent to the benefit of a national team.

Denayer plays for the fourth best team in France. Pickford and Mings play for mid-table Premier League sides.

Agree with the last bit, and I think there's a cogent argument that Grealish or Foden could become that player in the not-too-distant future, particularly Foden. (I think Gilmour might beat them all though from the bits I've seen though. He looks a really complete deep-lying playmaker who is rock-solid in possession).

See, this is where to me you end up overrating some of the foreign players which underrating some of the England players to make it fit. You mentioned players like Fernandes, Dias and Chellini who I didn't mention as the point I'm making is every team has their weaker positions. I agree all those players are excellent.

To me any of our 4 right backs are better than Semedo for Portugal or Munier for Belgium. Equally I don't think Pepe, Denayer or Vertongen get into this England XI, even with Maguire injured. I'd have Rice over either of the Portguese holding midfielders and I'd take Kane over any of the German striking options.

In my opinion the absolute best players in our team probably aren't as good as the absolute best players for Belgium, Portugal or similar. But I'd also add that the weakest players/positions in our first XI and squad are probably stronger than the weaker players in those respective teams. 

 

[hogesar 9,618]

6 hours ago, chicken said:

I think I'd give Scotland a little more credit than being Crystal Palace if honest. Especially when you look at the teams some of those players are in. Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Villa, Chelsea - all finished above Palace.

 

Overall, I thought Crystal Palace was giving a bit too much credit. I'd be more towards Burnley / Brighton