Quick Poll....

[Blurboy1980 36]

Who wins a world cup first....

England or the USA?

Obviously not first cause we have 1 under our belt but you know what I mean.

[Europe_93 50]

Next

England

[Yellow Shirt 17]

Close call, I think it will be a couple of generations before either do (unless USA ''do a Greece'' this time).Probably will be England, just, because our FA is desperate to put things in place to make that happen.

[lake district canary 4,831]

Canada

[Blurboy1980 36]

With Simeon Jackson leading the attack.

[Tommie Tippee 0]

Gutted. Thought this was going to be a post about the speed of the former referee. Capital letters in the wrong places... What is the world coming to

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Shirt"]Close call, I think it will be a couple of generations before either do (unless USA ''do a Greece'' this time).
Probably will be England, just, because our FA is desperate to put things in place to make that happen.
[/quote]

 

With respect, I believe you are confusing desperation with ambition.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

USA has much eadier qualifying so will be in every cup whereas England could miss a few.

USA seems to be producing more high quality players than ever whereas England seems to be producing fewer, albeit still far more than America.

England SHOULD do it first but seem headed in the wrong direction, and having a top league dominated by foreign talent limits the opportunities for slower developing players to really blossom.

[Hairy Canary 754]

Neither in my lifetime - after all I''m over 40.

[pete_norw 0]

We play football, America play Armoured Rugby, we invented the game and everyone show''s us how it should be played where players like to get their teeth into it,

England will never win any Major Trophies because the club managers don''t care about the progress of England, only their club and Job and you can''t blame them with Megga rich owners want the best for the club.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]USA has much eadier qualifying so will be in every cup whereas England could miss a few.

USA seems to be producing more high quality players than ever whereas England seems to be producing fewer, albeit still far more than America.

England SHOULD do it first but seem headed in the wrong direction, and having a top league dominated by foreign talent limits the opportunities for slower developing players to really blossom.[/quote]

I am not trying to pick an argument ,,, but who in the USA squad do you consider to be a high quality player ?

I can only really suggest that Tim Howard has been , but must be coming to the end of his career sooner rather than later .

The rest of the squad are industrious ,,, but I am not sure that quality is the correct description .

Genuinely interested to know from your point of view please .

[Syteanric 1]

USA

then a "developing" nation like an African side or one of the lesser south americans, Chile, Mexico (centrral Anmerica) etc.

England wont win the world cup in the next 50 years. I reckon England will make 2 of the next 5 world cups.

[ZLF 335]

[quote user="Barclay seats 48 49 the 3rd"][quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]USA has much eadier qualifying so will be in every cup whereas England could miss a few. USA seems to be producing more high quality players than ever whereas England seems to be producing fewer, albeit still far more than America. England SHOULD do it first but seem headed in the wrong direction, and having a top league dominated by foreign talent limits the opportunities for slower developing players to really blossom.[/quote] I am not trying to pick an argument ,,, but who in the USA squad do you consider to be a high quality player ? I can only really suggest that Tim Howard has been , but must be coming to the end of his career sooner rather than later . The rest of the squad are industrious ,,, but I am not sure that quality is the correct description . Genuinely interested to know from your point of view please .[/quote]

 

Solid proof that there is no I in team,  which USA have excelled and our band of individual mercenaries fail miserably at.

 

The team that have sparkled this world cup have a superb team effort supplement by quality;    those with quality and no team ethic, or neither have already left the tournament.

 

And team work is not about effort or passion. 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

I find it strange how negative people are about the England national team''s development. England are about the same they''ve always been and will continue to play to the same level for the next decade or so. I see no massive improvements, nor a massive decline. 

I think the one thing the FA must improve on (more than the production of young talent) is the development of more English coaches. The amount of qualified coaches we have in this country is shockingly low when compared to nations like Germany or Spain. The FA must do more to get those numbers up. Whilst there have been some promising signs, the lack of a clear strategy is concerning.   

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I find it strange how negative people are about the England national team''s development. England are about the same they''ve always been and will continue to play to the same level for the next decade or so. I see no massive improvements, nor a massive decline. 

I think the one thing the FA must improve on (more than the production of young talent) is the development of more English coaches. The amount of qualified coaches we have in this country is shockingly low when compared to nations like Germany or Spain. The FA must do more to get those numbers up. Whilst there have been some promising signs, the lack of a clear strategy is concerning.   

[/quote]

 

For me England were better at the World Cup this month, than they were at Euro 2012, when they were better than the World Cup in 2010. Slow improvement is happening and England did have one of the youngest teams at the World Cup.

 

Development of players in England is improving, just at a slow rate, whilst for the USA development is much faster as they were working from a fairly low base. It''s easy to go from being a bad team to a decent team, but to push on to becoming a great team is much harder. USA will probably plateau for a little while while they wait for the next generation of players to come through.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley and even though he''s not on the team, Landon Donovan are all highly skilled world class players. Supposedly Julian Green is the next one, having to decide between playing for US or Germany. Mixx "Disco Stu" Diskarud looks very good as does Brek Shea and these guys are young.

Tim Howard is NAILS!

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley and even though he''s not on the team, Landon Donovan are all highly skilled world class players. Supposedly Julian Green is the next one, having to decide between playing for US or Germany. Mixx "Disco Stu" Diskarud looks very good as does Brek Shea and these guys are young.

Tim Howard is NAILS![/quote]

Interesting reply ,, although I have no idea what "nails" means ...is that good or bad ?

I would agree that Donovan and Dempsey have been decent quality players , although Dempsey failed to impress in his last season in the EPL.

I was more the younger players to come through I was enquiring about , again I say quite genuinely , I am not being critical or trying to pick a fight ,, but haven''t seen anything in the last three games to suggest any outstanding quality ,, or even what Dempsey or Donovan have shown in the past .

However , I am accepting this was only three games , and hence my question ,, and thank you for the answer .

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Nails means solid, reliable, intense but balanced, comes through in the clutch, and fearless.

Klinnsman did sub in one youngster twice. Fast as can be but I know little else about him, Yedlin. He looked comfortable.

[jaemae2 0]

[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]USA has much eadier qualifying so will be in every cup whereas England could miss a few.

USA seems to be producing more high quality players than ever whereas England seems to be producing fewer, albeit still far more than America.

England SHOULD do it first but seem headed in the wrong direction, and having a top league dominated by foreign talent limits the opportunities for slower developing players to really blossom.[/quote]

Yeah, CONCACAF has been terrible this WC... idiocy.

[Herman 11,136]

It''s still easier to qualify through though.

[jaemae2 0]

[quote user="Herman "]It''s still easier to qualify through though.[/quote]

Marginally. Some of those bottom teams are fairly easy, it''s not like San Marino etc. etc... are a challenge.

[Guest]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I find it strange how negative people are about the England national team''s development. England are about the same they''ve always been and will continue to play to the same level for the next decade or so. I see no massive improvements, nor a massive decline. 

I think the one thing the FA must improve on (more than the production of young talent) is the development of more English coaches. The amount of qualified coaches we have in this country is shockingly low when compared to nations like Germany or Spain. The FA must do more to get those numbers up. Whilst there have been some promising signs, the lack of a clear strategy is concerning.   

[/quote]

 

For me England were better at the World Cup this month, than they were at Euro 2012, when they were better than the World Cup in 2010. Slow improvement is happening and England did have one of the youngest teams at the World Cup.

 

Development of players in England is improving, just at a slow rate, whilst for the USA development is much faster as they were working from a fairly low base. It''s easy to go from being a bad team to a decent team, but to push on to becoming a great team is much harder. USA will probably plateau for a little while while they wait for the next generation of players to come through.

[/quote]

Taking stock after the plane has landed, I have to disagree.

I think our group was the worst of the eight. Our first game against Italy was the best and yet that was between the two teams going home early.

I think the coaching had much to do with it admittedly and I have no objections to a foreign coach of our national team while paradoxically believing there are too many foreign players in our leagues.

I believe that many of the younger players taken have promise and some left behind like Walcott are still young enough to have a good international career.

We don''t have to copy other nations, we do have our own attitude and styles and I believe they just have to be polished to suit.

All these gifted continentals didn''t grow up kicking rags around filthy streets like the urban myth of yesteryear. They just preferred to play that way.

We do need to sharpen up on our control of course but we''ve been saying that for years and nothing has changed.

[Guest]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Phillip J Fry"]I find it strange how negative people are about the England national team''s development. England are about the same they''ve always been and will continue to play to the same level for the next decade or so. I see no massive improvements, nor a massive decline. 

I think the one thing the FA must improve on (more than the production of young talent) is the development of more English coaches. The amount of qualified coaches we have in this country is shockingly low when compared to nations like Germany or Spain. The FA must do more to get those numbers up. Whilst there have been some promising signs, the lack of a clear strategy is concerning.   

[/quote]

 

For me England were better at the World Cup this month, than they were at Euro 2012, when they were better than the World Cup in 2010. Slow improvement is happening and England did have one of the youngest teams at the World Cup.

 

Development of players in England is improving, just at a slow rate, whilst for the USA development is much faster as they were working from a fairly low base. It''s easy to go from being a bad team to a decent team, but to push on to becoming a great team is much harder. USA will probably plateau for a little while while they wait for the next generation of players to come through.

[/quote]

Taking stock after the plane has landed, I have to disagree.

I think our group was the worst of the eight. Our first game against Italy was the best and yet that was between the two teams going home early.

I think the coaching had much to do with it admittedly and I have no objections to a foreign coach of our national team while paradoxically believing there are too many foreign players in our leagues.

I believe that many of the younger players taken have promise and some left behind like Walcott are still young enough to have a good international career.

We don''t have to copy other nations, we do have our own attitude and styles and I believe they just have to be polished to suit.

All these gifted continentals didn''t grow up kicking rags around filthy streets like the urban myth of yesteryear. They just preferred to play that way.

We do need to sharpen up on our control of course but we''ve been saying that for years and nothing has changed.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Conquering get at least 3 teams. Besides the 3 north American teams, most have very small population and not great infrastructure so qualifying for a now interested US team is almost guaranteed. If you want to compare Nicaragua to Croatia or Belize to Slovakia, you need to refocus your idiocy comment and look in the mirror.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Speaking of idiocy, first word was meant to be Conquercaf.

[jaemae2 0]

No, I''m comparing them to San Marino and the equivalent in Europa qualifying.

[Dubai Mark 0]

As more nations get stronger, then the chances of either nation to actually win the WC will lessen. Getting in to the finals and then through the groups stages will be harder even if both nations also improve, which I think they both will. So, for me NEITHER will win a WC in the next 20 to 30 years.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

No, I''m comparing them to San Marino and the equivalent in Europa qualifying.

Which is idiotic.Concacaf has a much higher rate of tiny nations and to make it even more off target, many of the Concacaf nations don''t have much in terms of economic or athletic infrastructure whereas Europe''s lesser countries at least have the economic aspect (highways, housing, schools, communications and so on).

[jaemae2 0]

[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]No, I''m comparing them to San Marino and the equivalent in Europa qualifying.

Which is idiotic.Concacaf has a much higher rate of tiny nations and to make it even more off target, many of the Concacaf nations don''t have much in terms of economic or athletic infrastructure whereas Europe''s lesser countries at least have the economic aspect (highways, housing, schools, communications and so on).[/quote]

Yes, those houses, and communications really matter when it comes to soccer. Wow is this stupid.

You are comparing the worst CONCACAF countries to middle of the road Europa countries. Of course they aren''t equivalent.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Do you have any idea who''s in Concacaf? Most members are tiny Caribbean nations with nice beaches and resorts but little else beyond that. Concacaf is rife with members like this whereas in Europe they are the exception. If you want to believe qualifying for the world cup is only slightly easier for the US in Concacaf compared to England in Europe, go ahead.

If you don''t think infrastructure matters to quality of life and development of decent athletics, you are living in a dream world. Ever seen a documentary about developing football programs in Africa? What they all want to have because they know it matters is good infrastructure at the facilities. You know, housing and running water for the players.

Are you for real?