World Cup: 2018 WC Qualifiers Part II

[YNWA14]

Well I mean it's relative right. They're among the top footballing nations for sure. Are they among the elite? No, definitely not, but a lot of the belief is media driven and based on their domestic league (which comprises largely of top foreign players) popularity. They're definitely not fodder -- they consistently qualify among the top of the European teams. They've won a World Cup (which is more than most nations can say as only 8 different teams have won it, France has also only won it once, and it's not like it was an easy team to beat). Even if you look at the teams that have knocked them out at various stages in international competition:

1968 - Yugoslavia (runners up)
1970 - West Germany (3rd place)
1986 - Argentina (eventual winners)
1990 - West Germany (eventual winners, lost in PKs)
1996 - Germany (eventual winners, lost in PKs)
2002 - Brazil (eventual winners, lost 2-1)
2004 - Portugal (runners up, lost in PKs controversial game)
2006 - Potugal (lost in PKs again)
2012 - Italy (runners up)

So I mean it's not like England are bombing out to just anybody most of the time, and they're competitive games. I think the pressure of the media definitely does a lot to the players/managers. But they've had enough success and generally walk through qualifying to be considered a top international team. So I guess it depends on your definition of a top international team but they're far from fodder, and I don't really think there's 2 tiers above them.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Who is not being realistic? Where is anyone calling England favourites of any kind? You're arguing against yourself.

As for Lallana...I'm not sure he really fits into a team playing deep and looking to hit on the counter. He slows down the play too much in possession and isn't very quick getting forward. His passing from deep isn't the greatest. He's a good transition player to link up with other more direct players, he presses extremely well and his link up is good in shorter distances. He can be really streaky in the final third but when he's on he's a big threat there too. That said he would fit in better to a 3-5-2 than a 3-4-3 IMO. He's not much of a wide player. I could see a midfield 3 with Dier/Henderson as the holder behind Lallana and Dele with Chambo as a back-up working really well (assuming Lallana can stay healthy, and comes back strong from his injury). Realistically their best 11, IMO, come the summer would probably be this (IMO):

Pickford
Gomez - Jones - Stones
Walker -------- Dier* -------- Rose
Lallana** - Dele
Sterling
Kane
​

With Sterling and Kane having freedom to roam. Guys like Maguire, Bertrand, Henderson, Chamberlain, Rashford and Sturridge deputizing (*Henderson could start over Dier, **Chamberlain could start over Lallana if he continues to develop).

EDIT: So basically what Havre suggested but I don't think Sterling struggles centrally. He was fantastic there with Liverpool, though that was behind Sturridge/Suarez. He still looked fairly good as the focal point in Rodgers' side the next season playing centrally but his final ball left a lot to be desired. I think playing with Kane and Dele that would be less of an issue.

If Lallana is better in a possession based system and isn't a great passer from deep, why wouldn't we switch to a 3-4-3 and play possession? An attacking midfielder in a 3-4-3 doesn't play that wide if you ask me. It also suits Sterling and possibly Dele much better if you ask me.

I don't really see how Ox would be Lallana's main substitute as a CM. Complete different players if you ask me. I'd see Winks as Lallana's main sub and either AOC or RLC as Dele's main sub in the lineup you proposed.

 

[koyvoo]

There is easily two tiers above them. One is the elite. Germany, France, Spain and maybe Brazil right now. Then there’s a tier with Portugal and teams of the like. They are also not in that one or they would’ve beaten someone of significance at least once. I will give this to them. They can be tough to put down. Yes, it’s taken penalties very often. But, against those teams that have put them out on penalties or in s tight game, it always did look like England was just hanging on. Not on the verge of winning any of those games.

 

[Evilo]

I agree with most of this, but said the same thing about Spain for years. Until they proved they could win.
I don't expect England to do any better than QF this upcoming WC. But they have nice youth and who says they won't get a golden generation like Spain and prove history wrong?
Not now, but in 8 years. It's possible. I'd rather bank on Germany, France or Brazil for the upcoming 8 years as well because they produce the most talent, but who knows.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

I agree with most of this, but said the same thing about Spain for years. Until they proved they could win.
I don't expect England to do any better than QF this upcoming WC. But they have nice youth and who says they won't get a golden generation like Spain and prove history wrong?
Not now, but in 8 years. It's possible. I'd rather bank on Germany, France or Brazil for the upcoming 8 years as well because they produce the most talent, but who knows.

I don't know much about their youth teams other than people raving about them however, I don't envision them winning anything even with a golden generation unless, they change the way they play at the senior NT level.

Having a great squad doesn't make up for backward tactics and a terrible coaches.

 

[Savant]

It all depends on the Draw. And who can stay out of Penalty Kicks.

 

[Evilo]

I don't know much about their youth teams other than people raving about them however, I don't envision them winning anything even with a golden generation unless, they change the way they play at the senior NT level.

Having a great squad doesn't make up for backward tactics and a terrible coaches.

France reached a WC final with Domenech as coach (and lost on PK).
NT coaches are castly overrated. Player selection is the most important. They don't have enough time to preach major tactics.

 

[sabremike]

When people talk about England always being a failure I can't help but think of the book Soccernomics. The authors actually make a very good case that given the nation's population and geographical size England actually punch above their weight in international competition. Was actually an interesting take on the old narative.

 

[Live in the Now]

Once again, just because it’s mind boggling how they aren’t perennially rated a b-c level international side, below is a list of each and every single knock out game that England have ever won in the entire history of major tournament play. These results do not include two tournaments played on home soil (1966lol and 1996)

• 3-0 v Paraguay, 1986 World Cup
• 1-0 v Belgium AET, 1990 World Cup
• 3-2 v Cameroon AET, 1990 World Cup
• 3-0 v Denmark, 2002 World Cup
• 1-0 v Ecuador, 2006 World Cup

That’s it. Since the first inception of major tournament play, these are the only sides England have ever been able to beat when the chips are down. Ever. Not one tournament favourite in that entire list. Barely a tournament dark horse on that list. People need to be realistic and stop being sheep the media’s narrative.

This stuff is all irrelevant. Did any of the players now play in those games? No. Was it the same coach? Also no. History does not predict future results. I don't think by any stretch that they'll win because it would be foolish to make that prediction, but the past is totally irrelevant. Chile at the tournaments they won is a pretty good example of that, so is Spain as has been mentioned.

National team football is usually about the players at your disposal. Almost every national team coach will pick strange players instead of the best choices. England does have good players, so do a lot of the teams that will be in Russia. They do not have any players who are actually bad in their lineup, besides possibly Joe Hart. You can't write any of the teams with good players off and say they have no chances to advance deep.

France, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Argentina, Portugal, Belgium, Uruguay, England, Switzerland, Colombia, Croatia, and Poland could make the SF and it would not surprise me very much. I tried to order those in a way of what I expect to happen. All of those teams have really good players at their disposal, and a coach might find the right combination of them to put in their lineup. The World Cup is sometimes a tournament where even stranger things happen, like when Sweden, Bulgaria, Uruguay, and Turkey made the SF. So you don't really know what will happen.

 

[Evilo]

When people talk about England always being a failure I can't help but think of the book Soccernomics. The authors actually make a very good case that given the nation's population and geographical size England actually punch above their weight in international competition. Was actually an interesting take on the old narative.

Doesn't make sense to me. 53M people, rich country, great stadiums, huge importance on football.
If they punch over their weight, what does that make of France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Holland?

 

[YNWA14]

NT coaching is underrated if anything. Getting a team to play together and buy into the system usually gets them to a point where the sum is greater than its parts (just look at the Netherlands and Portugal recently). Team selection is important in the sense that you need to pick the right players to play how you want to play internationally (or adapt your tactics to the players) but coaching is still very important.

 

[Evilo]

Can't see how it's important. Players don't have enough time to buy into a detailed tactic. As I said, it's about motivation and player selections.

Don't get your Holland/Portugal part either. One is a failure regardless of the coach for the last 5 years, the other has been awul and lucked into a win because of new rules and some bounces.

 

[Live in the Now]

Doesn't make sense to me. 53M people, rich country, great stadiums, huge importance on football.
If they punch over their weight, what does that make of France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Holland?

The book's arguments are that English teams play too many fixtures without a break, English fans put too much pressure on players, and that in more recent times when they had quality they would have key players get hurt before the tournament.

The only argument that really makes sense to me is the first one, but every country has players playing in England, so I don't know. I think the reason England hasn't won or advanced in tournaments is because until very recently they played a long ball, low percentage style of football that is reliant on lucky bounces to score goals. In the Iceland game last year both teams were playing the same style and I believe that kind of football gives every team equal chances to win.

 

[sabremike]

Doesn't make sense to me. 53M people, rich country, great stadiums, huge importance on football.
If they punch over their weight, what does that make of France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Holland?

Take it from me: a large population, being the richest country on Earth, great stadiums and a (relatively recent) importance on football doesn't get you that far these days :-(

 

[Live in the Now]

Take it from me: a large population, being the richest country on Earth, great stadiums and a (relatively recent) importance on football doesn't get you that far these days :-(

It's the kind of football they played and not any of the things argued in the book. They are playing different football now because they don't have players as tall or as powerful in the air as they used to, so we'll see where that takes them.

 

[Evilo]

Pressure's pretty high in other countries too. Italy, France, Germany...
Fixtures is stupid, since they play the same number of games anyway.

 

[YNWA14]

Can't see how it's important. Players don't have enough time to buy into a detailed tactic. As I said, it's about motivation and player selections.

Don't get your Holland/Portugal part either. One is a failure regardless of the coach for the last 5 years, the other has been awul and lucked into a win because of new rules and some bounces.

Holland won 3rd at the most recent WC with a team most people thought would be out in the group stages (including trouncing the defending champions, and being PKs and a heroic defensive performance from Mascherano away from reaching the final).

Coaching is absolutely important, regardless of the amount of time they have (even though there's plenty of time as most coaches for the WC get plenty of time leading up to the WC and other tournaments if they're not failing). Motivation is also a large part of the coaching staff's responsibility.

 

[Evilo]

Take it from me: a large population, being the richest country on Earth, great stadiums and a (relatively recent) importance on football doesn't get you that far these days :-(

Importance is certainly arguable. Football is no more than 5th sport in the US. If you're a good athlete, you choose other sports before football.
TV is more interested in NFL or NBA or MLB as well.

You can't compare to the undisputed #1 sport in most european countries.

 

[Evilo]

Holland won 3rd at the most recent WC with a team most people thought would be out in the group stages (including trouncing the defending champions, and being PKs and a heroic defensive performance from Mascherano away from reaching the final).

Coaching is absolutely important, regardless of the amount of time they have (even though there's plenty of time as most coaches for the WC get plenty of time leading up to the WC and other tournaments if they're not failing). Motivation is also a large part of the coaching staff's responsibility.

Yes, as I said, motivation.
But players coach themselves in those competitions. Coach gives the general tactic, the scheme and stresses on a few things. But they don't have time to go in a thorough tactical work.

 

[Live in the Now]

The only time a coach matters is if they call the same players up every single time and do the same tactics every time. Chile being a good example although towards the end of their qualifying run it seemed like the players were tired of it (and now they aren't there).

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

If you don't think coaches in the NT level matter look at Argentina's cup runs with the likes of Batista/Maradona as opposed to Tata and Sabella.

Coaches at the NT matter, and can derail a cup run or worse. England need to be revolutionized, mentality wise and tactics as well.

 

[Evilo]

Again, you don't separate tactical and motivationnal/player selection here.
Coach don't matter much tactically.

Again, Domenech. Enough said.

 

[Live in the Now]

If you don't think coaches in the NT level matter look at Argentina's cup runs with the likes of Batista/Maradona as opposed to Tata and Sabella.

Coaches at the NT matter, and can derail a cup run or worse. England need to be revolutionized, mentality wise and tactics as well.

There was nothing wrong that Diego did at the WC except play against a team that destroyed everyone until playing the best NT in history. Argentina cruised through the group with ease and beat Mexico pretty easily as well. That Spain team is one of the only teams ever that would have beaten that German team the way they were playing.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Again, you don't separate tactical and motivationnal/player selection here.
Coach don't matter much tactically.

Again, Domenech. Enough said.

Again, Maradona. Enough said.

Domenech managed to f*** up a gimme against Portugal. Tactics matter. See Greece with their Euro trophy.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

There was nothing wrong that Diego did at the WC except play against a team that destroyed everyone until playing the best NT in history. Argentina cruised through the group with ease and beat Mexico pretty easily as well. That Spain team is one of the only teams ever that would have beaten that German team the way they were playing.

Look at the qualifiers and look at the games in context. Messi literally carried them their and once, they played a half decent team Argentina got exposed. Otamendi was left dizzy and I remember him playing Gutierrez out of position with hilarious results.