England U21

[Phileas Fogg]

5 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

As above, fallen out of touch with the Prem, but dont Wilshere and Morrison have questionable attitudes? Both had good potential, but it is up to them to fulfill it.

Morrison was a lost cause all along I think but very talented. Not really sure what happened with Wilshere but injuries haven't helped.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

What about Lallana as part of the 3?

Wilshere he liked a smoke, was seen in clubs and yeah injuries and other reasons helped his decline.

Dier- screening. Henderson- box to box, Lallana currently plays in a central 3 at Liverpool and is rather technical. Ideal would be Wilshere but...not plausible at mo. Perhaps in a 4-2-1-3 with the 2 being Dier and Henderson and Lallana between them and the front 3- able to rove behiond in attacking phase and drop back as part of a 3 in the more midfield/defensive phase.

Agree with @Cowshed we're not a top side.

I thought Slovakia game was better than a lot of England home games in recent times IMO- Scotland away was decent also and in some ways as we got a strong test there, Slovenia away last year. Hart had a fine game from memory.

[Tipps69]

Part of England's / Southgate's issue is that we have decided on a formation / style to play & we've been rigid with it.

While I understand that the smaller nations are no longer as much of a walkover as they would of been previously, playing Malta with Kane up top as the on only striker is somewhat negative to me. Malta were never going to set-up to attack us (and technically aren't good enough to trouble us), so why not back our own ability? Play someone up top Kane, give us another option!

Southgate seems to have his first eleven set in concrete in his mind & won't shift from that no matter what & there seems to be no plan B unless we're a goal down with half hour to go & then it's all a massive panic!

Everyone knows how we are going to set-up & what players & tactics will be played & they can set-up to try & combat us & frustrate us & it often works for them.

We have players that can play different positions in different formations so Southgate doesn't have to make wholesale changes to a team to play a different formation to make the opposition think twice about what's happening.

Sterling just hasn't progressed enough & offers very little to England or Man City, all that money was spent on his potential & he simply has fulfilled it & why would he have a desire to? He is a multimillionaire in his early 20's!

Henderson & Dier basically do the same job & that is to protect the back four, which is fine while the full-backs are bombing on but in affect, what is needed is a quarterback (in American football) type player to dictate the play & to be able to pick out a pass, be that a 5 yard pass or a 50 yard pass but in my opinion neither Dier or Henderson offer us that.

Our wingers (in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2) aren't able to affect a game enough & don't tend to show enough desire to do so & Kane up front on his own is a thankless task because he's wrong if he comes short (leaves us no one up front) & he's wrong if he runs in behind as he then tends to be isolated while Dele seemingly has a freedom to come & go as he wishes.

Considering the consistency in the players selected & the formation played, I would expect the players to have an idea of what is expected from them but they seemingly don't have any idea.

The rest of the world have progressed (in the main) & we are one of the few nations that seemed to of stagnated & it's not a recent problem, it's been going on for decades!

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

Part of England's / Southgate's issue is that we have decided on a formation / style to play & we've been rigid with it.

While I understand that the smaller nations are no longer as much of a walkover as they would of been previously, playing Malta with Kane up top as the on only striker is somewhat negative to me. Malta were never going to set-up to attack us (and technically aren't good enough to trouble us), so why not back our own ability? Play someone up top Kane, give us another option!

Southgate seems to have his first eleven set in concrete in his mind & won't shift from that no matter what & there seems to be no plan B unless we're a goal down with half hour to go & then it's all a massive panic!

Everyone knows how we are going to set-up & what players & tactics will be played & they can set-up to try & combat us & frustrate us & it often works for them.

We have players that can play different positions in different formations so Southgate doesn't have to make wholesale changes to a team to play a different formation to make the opposition think twice about what's happening.

Sterling just hasn't progressed enough & offers very little to England or Man City, all that money was spent on his potential & he simply has fulfilled it & why would he have a desire to? He is a multimillionaire in his early 20's!

Henderson & Dier basically do the same job & that is to protect the back four, which is fine while the full-backs are bombing on but in affect, what is needed is a quarterback (in American football) type player to dictate the play & to be able to pick out a pass, be that a 5 yard pass or a 50 yard pass but in my opinion neither Dier or Henderson offer us that.

Our wingers (in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2) aren't able to affect a game enough & don't tend to show enough desire to do so & Kane up front on his own is a thankless task because he's wrong if he comes short (leaves us no one up front) & he's wrong if he runs in behind as he then tends to be isolated while Dele seemingly has a freedom to come & go as he wishes.

Considering the consistency in the players selected & the formation played, I would expect the players to have an idea of what is expected from them but they seemingly don't have any idea.

The rest of the world have progressed (in the main) & we are one of the few nations that seemed to of stagnated & it's not a recent problem, it's been going on for decades!

Gareth Southgate has used 3-4-3,  3-4-2-1 and 4-2-3-1 in recent games. If (?) you are suggesting he is also using 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 he clearly is not being rigid in approach. It is highly debatable if Gareth Southgate is using wingers at all.

 

 

[Trueredsupporter]

On ‎06‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 12:37, Moor2Sea said:

Just going back to the point you highlighted in my post, can you/anyone explain Dier, Livermore, Henderson .... against Malta? Three defensive midfielders, in front of a back four! 

Were they played like that?

[Taz]

On 05/09/2017 at 21:46, nickolas said:

Henderson is an expensive Joe Burnell! Sideways, sideways, backwards. 

And to be given the armband?! Laughable. 

Roy Keane talking last week about very average players earning vast sums of money in the game nowadays. 

Well Henderson falls right into that one for me. 

Replace Henderson's name with many of the names in previous squads, and that just about works for most players.

Very few of our first team would get into the likes of Italy, Spain, Germany's etc squads, let alone first teams.

 

[Luxo Jr.]

Lallana missing is a big blow for England. He's the link between midfield and attack that really makes the team tick, plus he has a very good work ethic and excellent vision. Also he's brought more goals to his game. 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 hour ago, Taz said:

Replace Henderson's name with many of the names in previous squads, and that just about works for most players.

Very few of our first team would get into the likes of Italy, Spain, Germany's etc squads, let alone first teams.

 

Not sure that's true actually, I think we are sometimes a bit hard on the players we've got.

Kane, Alli, Walker and maybe Lallana would stand a decent chance of making a few of those first 11s I think. 

I think the likes of Rashford, Defoe, Sterling, Milner, Ward-Prowse, Dier, Clyne and possibly Stones would be in contention for squad places too. Continental sides would value some of their attributes (and probably use them far better).

I think the problem lies in midfield for England. We've been pretty spoilt for midfielders in our recent history and the current crop don't compare - Alli aside.

[South stander]

Didn't Dier miss the Malta match due to suspension, so Livermore was a replacement.  Don't rate Livermore and agree about the need to have either Dier or Henderson, not both.

[nickolas]

3 hours ago, Taz said:

Replace Henderson's name with many of the names in previous squads, and that just about works for most players.

Very few of our first team would get into the likes of Italy, Spain, Germany's etc squads, let alone first teams.

 

True. Which is also why you dont see England players linked to Madrid, Barca etc. 

[Phileas Fogg]

3 hours ago, nickolas said:

True. Which is also why you dont see England players linked to Madrid, Barca etc. 

Haven't Walker, Alli and Kane all been linked over the last 18 months?

 

[Tipps69]

9 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Gareth Southgate has used 3-4-3,  3-4-2-1 and 4-2-3-1 in recent games. If (?) you are suggesting he is also using 3-5-2 and 4-4-2 he clearly is not being rigid in approach. It is highly debatable if Gareth Southgate is using wingers at all.

 

 

In theory all formations can be interchangeable as to when a team is attacking or defending.

For the majority of Southgate's tenure he has chosen the same players...... Hart, Walker, Cahill, (another centre-half), Bertrand, Henderson, Dier, Dele, Kane & either of Chamberlain / Welbeck / Sterling playing the wide midfield / wing positions.

This is the team that have played the majority of fixtures under Southgate & with one out & out striker unless we've been chasing a game from behind!

Hardly the tactics of a 'force in world football', especially when we've played the teams we have in competitive matches. We have tended to worry about what other teams are going to do rather than make other teams worry about what we are going to do & that is because we are far too predictable.

[RedRock]

5 hours ago, South stander said:

Didn't Dier miss the Malta match due to suspension, so Livermore was a replacement.  Don't rate Livermore and agree about the need to have either Dier or Henderson, not both.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument and public lynching event :-)

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

In theory all formations can be interchangeable as to when a team is attacking or defending.

For the majority of Southgate's tenure he has chosen the same players...... Hart, Walker, Cahill, (another centre-half), Bertrand, Henderson, Dier, Dele, Kane & either of Chamberlain / Welbeck / Sterling playing the wide midfield / wing positions.

This is the team that have played the majority of fixtures under Southgate & with one out & out striker unless we've been chasing a game from behind!

Hardly the tactics of a 'force in world football', especially when we've played the teams we have in competitive matches. We have tended to worry about what other teams are going to do rather than make other teams worry about what we are going to do & that is because we are far too predictable.

In theory all formations can be interchangeable as to when a team is attacking or defending ... Obviously but the formations used for wholes games not aspects of matches have displayed a less than rigid approach, which is what you have implied.. Experiments such as three at the back where clearly different in intent.

England are not a force on World football. They are ordinary, mediocre and predictable.

If they used the formations you highlighted 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 with wingers (they don't have) they would be ordinary, mediocre and predictable because the options  in the main are. 4-4-2 with wingers would probably be comical in modern football v a top tier side.

Mr Southgate gets coated off as a yes man, conservative etc but has tried to change things particularly by employing  Stones and attacking full backs (inverted on one side v Slovakia). Its meaningless, Mr Southgate has a worse squad than Capello and Hodgson and the rest had.  

[Tipps69]

I must of missed when we played 3-5-2 & I'd guess it wasn't considered a success as I'd guess it was only used the once.

As for Stones, £50m for a player that hasn't played for the country in at least the last 2 internationals although he's widely regarded as our best ball playing centre-back makes me think that Southgate either doesn't rate him or he no longer wants to play out of defence, even against the likes of Malta.

We offer very little in the way creativity & there is a lack of urgency while Southgate sticks to his game plan of 'keeping patient', Slovakia did us a massive favour by scoring very early in the game as it meant we had to show some urgency but with the lack of creativity or the ability to change formation during a game it means we struggle to break average teams down. 

While teams play against us with 1 up front & 9 rigidly in midfield / defence, we still play with 2 defensive midfielders! Why? Our width comes from our full-backs which means they constantly have to run 60-80 yards to provide us with the opportunity of getting a cross in! Are our full-back really our best option of offering us any width? If the answer is yes then may I suggest that playing Oxlade-Chamberlain / Sterling / Welbeck & Rashford is a waste? Rashford in particular is the future of English football (along with Dele) but why not fit Rashford in where he's more natural & can offer more of a threat alongside Kane (who in my opinion needs more help.

If we are using the full-backs to give us the wide options, allow them the freedom to attack, play 3 at the back, Cahill-Stones-Dier, Walker & Bertrand as the wide-option with Henderson-Dele-Lallana (or another while he's injured) with Kane & Rashford up top, that gives us a solid defence (Dier can come into Midfield if there's no need for 3 defenders against 1 striker) & offers us an outlet up front & the opportunity of stretching the opposition with Rashford's (or even Vardy) pace rather than playing everything in front of the oppositions back 10!

We are too scared of losing a game & play with that fear from the outset, the likes of Spain / Germany / Brazil / Belgium & Argentina (to name just a few) set out to to win games from the start with no fear of losing, losing happens & I would rather we played friendlies (at least) with a different mindset but we even play friendlies with that fear!!

As for Southgate, I have no issue with him personally being England manager, there was hardly a massive list of potential suitors for the job as it's clearly a 'poisoned chalice' & our press reporters already destroy any potential suitor before they've even played a game!

We have to eradicate that fear factor from our national teams, individually they aren't bad players but the weight of expectation on some of these players can destroy them rather than make them!

Let's give the players the freedom to express themselves, especially in the friendlies & once they have been given that opportunity in the friendlies we can take it into our competitive / tournament play. But that mindset has to come from Southgate, let the players know that one bad game won't result in being dropped & on the same level, allow players on the fringes to know that if they perform week in & week out at league level they will get their opportunity & not just one game!!

[Cowshed]

4 hours ago, Tipps69 said:

I must of missed when we played 3-5-2 & I'd guess it wasn't considered a success as I'd guess it was only used the once.

As for Stones, £50m for a player that hasn't played for the country in at least the last 2 internationals although he's widely regarded as our best ball playing centre-back makes me think that Southgate either doesn't rate him or he no longer wants to play out of defence, even against the likes of Malta.

We offer very little in the way creativity & there is a lack of urgency while Southgate sticks to his game plan of 'keeping patient', Slovakia did us a massive favour by scoring very early in the game as it meant we had to show some urgency but with the lack of creativity or the ability to change formation during a game it means we struggle to break average teams down. 

While teams play against us with 1 up front & 9 rigidly in midfield / defence, we still play with 2 defensive midfielders! Why? Our width comes from our full-backs which means they constantly have to run 60-80 yards to provide us with the opportunity of getting a cross in! Are our full-back really our best option of offering us any width? If the answer is yes then may I suggest that playing Oxlade-Chamberlain / Sterling / Welbeck & Rashford is a waste? Rashford in particular is the future of English football (along with Dele) but why not fit Rashford in where he's more natural & can offer more of a threat alongside Kane (who in my opinion needs more help.

If we are using the full-backs to give us the wide options, allow them the freedom to attack, play 3 at the back, Cahill-Stones-Dier, Walker & Bertrand as the wide-option with Henderson-Dele-Lallana (or another while he's injured) with Kane & Rashford up top, that gives us a solid defence (Dier can come into Midfield if there's no need for 3 defenders against 1 striker) & offers us an outlet up front & the opportunity of stretching the opposition with Rashford's (or even Vardy) pace rather than playing everything in front of the oppositions back 10!

We are too scared of losing a game & play with that fear from the outset, the likes of Spain / Germany / Brazil / Belgium & Argentina (to name just a few) set out to to win games from the start with no fear of losing, losing happens & I would rather we played friendlies (at least) with a different mindset but we even play friendlies with that fear!!

As for Southgate, I have no issue with him personally being England manager, there was hardly a massive list of potential suitors for the job as it's clearly a 'poisoned chalice' & our press reporters already destroy any potential suitor before they've even played a game!

We have to eradicate that fear factor from our national teams, individually they aren't bad players but the weight of expectation on some of these players can destroy them rather than make them!

Let's give the players the freedom to express themselves, especially in the friendlies & once they have been given that opportunity in the friendlies we can take it into our competitive / tournament play. But that mindset has to come from Southgate, let the players know that one bad game won't result in being dropped & on the same level, allow players on the fringes to know that if they perform week in & week out at league level they will get their opportunity & not just one game!!

Mr Southgate has played three at the back and it has not worked particularly well. A argued success is the full backs in a four. And that in modern football is where the space is as teams flood midfield and use defensive midfielders to block space hence wingers disappearing from the game. 

Are our full-back really our best option of offering us any width? Often yes. That is now frequently the primary role of full back to provide width.  Creativity in front is still necessary but opportunity (the space) is limited by sides1 up front & 9 rigidly in midfield / defence as you observe.

Opprobrium chucked at Southgates 4-2-3-1 formation centres on it being defensive almost as if it is six at the back. Its not. The formation  can be overtly offensive with four attackers, two over lapping fullbacks and four players squeezing the space high, its a positive formation.

Spain / Germany / Brazil / Belgium & Argentina ... There are nations there using just one up top, defensive midfield players and full backs to provide width. Its football responding to modern formations and tactics not fear. The difference is those nations have very good and great players.

Mr Southgate has sent out teams to play openly (and half decently) in particular v Germany who also played very open (less than serious), then in competitive games England struggle v teams who packed  midfield ... Its a theme going back years. If set out to deny space via the tactics you observe even the best will find it hard. That is International football, and at its top level teams have flexible and highly technical players to combat it - England have average, and a questionable passing ability throughout the team and squad. 

England went foreign coach, English, ex player and the same themes are evident. These coaches cannot all be poor. They cannot be coaching in the same failings ... Expectations? England are a second tier International football nation that does not develop players suited to top level International football. Until that is addressed by radical change to create better rounded players expect more of the same regardless of whoever is in charge of  the team.

[nickolas]

15 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Haven't Walker, Alli and Kane all been linked over the last 18 months?

 

Ok not linked but actually playing for the foreign top teams. 

Essentially they arent good enough as a collective for England. We will always be an overrated footballing nation in my book!

[Super]

On ‎06‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 16:23, Mr Popodopolous said:

What about Lallana as part of the 3?

Wilshere he liked a smoke, was seen in clubs and yeah injuries and other reasons helped his decline.

Dier- screening. Henderson- box to box, Lallana currently plays in a central 3 at Liverpool and is rather technical. Ideal would be Wilshere but...not plausible at mo. Perhaps in a 4-2-1-3 with the 2 being Dier and Henderson and Lallana between them and the front 3- able to rove behiond in attacking phase and drop back as part of a 3 in the more midfield/defensive phase.

Agree with @Cowshed we're not a top side.

I thought Slovakia game was better than a lot of England home games in recent times IMO- Scotland away was decent also and in some ways as we got a strong test there, Slovenia away last year. Hart had a fine game from memory.

For me Lallana is our best player. Still a ridiculous decision not to play him against Iceland.

[Tipps69]

48 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Mr Southgate has played three at the back and it has not worked particularly well. A argued success is the full backs in a four. And that in modern football is where the space is as teams flood midfield and use defensive midfielders to block space hence wingers disappearing from the game. 

Are our full-back really our best option of offering us any width? Often yes. That is now frequently the primary role of full back to provide width.  Creativity in front is still necessary but opportunity (the space) is limited by sides1 up front & 9 rigidly in midfield / defence as you observe.

Opprobrium chucked at Southgates 4-2-3-1 formation centres on it being defensive almost as if it is six at the back. Its not. The formation  can be overtly offensive with four attackers, two over lapping fullbacks and four players squeezing the space high, its a positive formation.

Spain / Germany / Brazil / Belgium & Argentina ... There are nations there using just one up top, defensive midfield players and full backs to provide width. Its football responding to modern formations and tactics not fear. The difference is those nations have very good and great players.

Mr Southgate has sent out teams to play openly (and half decently) in particular v Germany who also played very open (less than serious), then in competitive games England struggle v teams who packed  midfield ... Its a theme going back years. If set out to deny space via the tactics you observe even the best will find it hard. That is International football, and at its top level teams have flexible and highly technical players to combat it - England have average, and a questionable passing ability throughout the team and squad. 

England went foreign coach, English, ex player and the same themes are evident. These coaches cannot all be poor. They cannot be coaching in the same failings ... Expectations? England are a second tier International football nation that does not develop players suited to top level International football. Until that is addressed by radical change to create better rounded players expect more of the same regardless of whoever is in charge of  the team.

I agree with what you're saying but for a team full of multimillion pound players, the players / managers should be able to adapt to our opposition better, either allow our full-backs the freedom to attack with the added security of having 3 at the back or having 1 of our defensive midfielders (Dier) to drop back in if we are playing 4-2-3-1, our biggest let down in that formation is the 3 because they don't play at a quick enough pace & don't have the necessary creativity & the 'wide' midfielders tend to be strikers playing out of position.

Players of the value that they are & being paid as they are should be able to adapt to different formations / strategies but we are so one dimensional that we are easy to defend against.

If teams are going to shut the space down, make the pitch as big as possible by keeping our 'wide attacking' players out wide, this will either enable us to develop space out wide (if not man marked tightly) or create space for others if they are man marked but we don't seem to make even the very basic of decisions regarding this.

It's not like we are talking non-League players here, we are talking the cream of the crop as far as our country is concerned.

I wouldn't mind us losing (as much) if we actually gave it a go but to lose to Iceland & hardly create a chance until we're behind or to only beat Malta 4-0 with 3 goals inside the last 5 minutes is obscure, other teams are able to break 'smaller nations' down when they set-up camp in front of them.

[JamesBCFC]

21 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Not sure that's true actually, I think we are sometimes a bit hard on the players we've got.

Kane, Alli, Walker and maybe Lallana would stand a decent chance of making a few of those first 11s I think. 

I think the likes of Rashford, Defoe, Sterling, Milner, Ward-Prowse, Dier, Clyne and possibly Stones would be in contention for squad places too. Continental sides would value some of their attributes (and probably use them far better).

I think the problem lies in midfield for England. We've been pretty spoilt for midfielders in our recent history and the current crop don't compare - Alli aside.

Walker and Lallana not a chance.

We have been missing him from our side but no way would he make the Spain/Italy/France or Germany one.

And for any of those to replace a FB with Walker would be like us getting rid of Pisano to bring Little back.

[Carey 6]

On 07/09/2017 at 08:58, Tipps69 said:

Part of England's / Southgate's issue is that we have decided on a formation / style to play & we've been rigid with it.

While I understand that the smaller nations are no longer as much of a walkover as they would of been previously, playing Malta with Kane up top as the on only striker is somewhat negative to me. Malta were never going to set-up to attack us (and technically aren't good enough to trouble us), so why not back our own ability? Play someone up top Kane, give us another option!

Southgate seems to have his first eleven set in concrete in his mind & won't shift from that no matter what & there seems to be no plan B unless we're a goal down with half hour to go & then it's all a massive panic!

Everyone knows how we are going to set-up & what players & tactics will be played & they can set-up to try & combat us & frustrate us & it often works for them.

We have players that can play different positions in different formations so Southgate doesn't have to make wholesale changes to a team to play a different formation to make the opposition think twice about what's happening.

Sterling just hasn't progressed enough & offers very little to England or Man City, all that money was spent on his potential & he simply has fulfilled it & why would he have a desire to? He is a multimillionaire in his early 20's!

Henderson & Dier basically do the same job & that is to protect the back four, which is fine while the full-backs are bombing on but in affect, what is needed is a quarterback (in American football) type player to dictate the play & to be able to pick out a pass, be that a 5 yard pass or a 50 yard pass but in my opinion neither Dier or Henderson offer us that.

Our wingers (in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2) aren't able to affect a game enough & don't tend to show enough desire to do so & Kane up front on his own is a thankless task because he's wrong if he comes short (leaves us no one up front) & he's wrong if he runs in behind as he then tends to be isolated while Dele seemingly has a freedom to come & go as he wishes.

Considering the consistency in the players selected & the formation played, I would expect the players to have an idea of what is expected from them but they seemingly don't have any idea.

The rest of the world have progressed (in the main) & we are one of the few nations that seemed to of stagnated & it's not a recent problem, it's been going on for decades!

Just picking out one bit of your post, but I don't get all this bad feeling from a lot of fans about Sterling. He's just like any winger, a bit inconsistent. 

Last season in 47 games (league and cup) for Man City he got 10 goals and 21 assists (counting won penalties). That is extremely impressive. 

So far this season he's got 2 goals in less than 2 games worth of football. 

England yes he's not great, but I'd start him every single game. Got to remember in that Iceland game, despite the utter shit we had to sit through, he was the one who won the penalty. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

45 minutes ago, Super said:

For me Lallana is our best player. Still a ridiculous decision not to play him against Iceland.

Definitely would have added something tbh,

@Cowshed I agree on 4-4-2 with wingers...vs a top side it could implode certainly.

3-5-2...you never know. Back 3, spare man at back if one likes to push on then maybe, wing backs would need to be incredibly fit and focused, two strikers would give modern defences something to think about and 3 in middle would reduce the risk of being overrun. May not work but maybe worth trying in a friendly or 2 I think. Agree with what you say broadly, though I have a personal preference for 4-3-3 over 4-2-3-1 myself.

[Phileas Fogg]

7 minutes ago, Carey 6 said:

Just picking out one bit of your post, but I don't get all this bad feeling from a lot of fans about Sterling. He's just like any winger, a bit inconsistent. 

Last season in 47 games (league and cup) for Man City he got 10 goals and 21 assists (counting won penalties). That is extremely impressive. 

So far this season he's got 2 goals in less than 2 games worth of football. 

England yes he's not great, but I'd start him every single game. Got to remember in that Iceland game, despite the utter shit we had to sit through, he was the one who won the penalty. 

Agree. Pep Guardiola clearly rates him which says it all.

[MarcusX]

1 hour ago, nickolas said:

Ok not linked but actually playing for the foreign top teams. 

Essentially they arent good enough as a collective for England. We will always be an overrated footballing nation in my book!

Someone would need to rate us to be "over" rated?

 

[Tipps69]

45 minutes ago, Carey 6 said:

Just picking out one bit of your post, but I don't get all this bad feeling from a lot of fans about Sterling. He's just like any winger, a bit inconsistent. 

Last season in 47 games (league and cup) for Man City he got 10 goals and 21 assists (counting won penalties). That is extremely impressive. 

So far this season he's got 2 goals in less than 2 games worth of football. 

England yes he's not great, but I'd start him every single game. Got to remember in that Iceland game, despite the utter shit we had to sit through, he was the one who won the penalty. 

I guess that for £50m (paid a few years ago), expectations are / were high for him & I don't think it's unrealistic to expect him to win games with his ability.

For £50m+ he's beyond the 'potential' label, he should now be producing on a regular basis & while your stats do sound impressive, how many times has a skied an opportunity high into the stand or hit the first defender with a cross or put it straight out of play when himself & the team (Man City & England) have been in a very good position?

Sterling's pace is a massive asset but how regularly (last season & before) did he actually run at / take on his defender? I'd suggest that it wasn't enough.

And against the might of Malta, he was simply not good enough & rightly didn't deserve his place in the team against Slovakia.

[MarcusX]

35 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

I guess that for £50m (paid a few years ago), expectations are / were high for him & I don't think it's unrealistic to expect him to win games with his ability.

For £50m+ he's beyond the 'potential' label, he should now be producing on a regular basis & while your stats do sound impressive, how many times has a skied an opportunity high into the stand or hit the first defender with a cross or put it straight out of play when himself & the team (Man City & England) have been in a very good position?

Sterling's pace is a massive asset but how regularly (last season & before) did he actually run at / take on his defender? I'd suggest that it wasn't enough.

And against the might of Malta, he was simply not good enough & rightly didn't deserve his place in the team against Slovakia.

Did Sterling put that price tag on his own head? No. Is he actually worth £50m? Again, no, Man City just have silly money to throw around.

It's completely unfair to judge a player on something like that which he cannot control. I wonder how much pressure and impact that has on such a young player - still only 22

All that said, I agree he rarely performs for England and I dont think he is good enough.

[Tipps69]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Did Sterling put that price tag on his own head? No. Is he actually worth £50m? Again, no, Man City just have silly money to throw around.

It's completely unfair to judge a player on something like that which he cannot control. I wonder how much pressure and impact that has on such a young player - still only 22

All that said, I agree he rarely performs for England and I dont think he is good enough.

And while he didn't put that value on his head, he's more than happy to pick up the subsequent wage that goes along with having such a value on him! And this is part of my issue that I made in a previous post on this thread, how much desire does a 22 year-old multimillionaire have to succeed at his chosen profession, especially when he can make so much for doing very little (again, that's not his doing).

In theory these 'youngsters' have very little reason to go out & 'bust a gut' because what's in it for them? Why risk breaking your leg or other serious injuries when you have all you can desire?

Call it my sceptical side but if our players showed a similar desire as the 'smaller nations' players to go along with their undoubted talent, we could & probably would be doing better than we currently are.

[Trueredsupporter]

On 9/7/2017 at 08:58, Tipps69 said:

Part of England's / Southgate's issue is that we have decided on a formation / style to play & we've been rigid with it.

The rest of the world have progressed (in the main) & we are one of the few nations that seemed to of stagnated & it's not a recent problem, it's been going on for decades!

Southgates issue is there in your last line. England have gone backwards and the squad he has are far worse than the one he was part of. These players Lallana - Alli ?? maybe all of them would not be good enough for England teams he played for.

[MarcusX]

On 08/09/2017 at 17:51, Tipps69 said:

And while he didn't put that value on his head, he's more than happy to pick up the subsequent wage that goes along with having such a value on him! And this is part of my issue that I made in a previous post on this thread, how much desire does a 22 year-old multimillionaire have to succeed at his chosen profession, especially when he can make so much for doing very little (again, that's not his doing).

In theory these 'youngsters' have very little reason to go out & 'bust a gut' because what's in it for them? Why risk breaking your leg or other serious injuries when you have all you can desire?

Call it my sceptical side but if our players showed a similar desire as the 'smaller nations' players to go along with their undoubted talent, we could & probably would be doing better than we currently are.

Are you seriously expecting him or anyone to say "No, sorry Man City i'm not worth that much I'll stay here"??

I agree with your point to a degree, our kids think they've made it when they get that contract before actually "doing" anything of note and they are paid far too much too young.

However on your last point,  I heard in an interview that in Spain and probably other places on the continent that a lot of their youth contracts are low (relatively) basic salaries with performance related bonuses etc so in your theory they would be even more concerned about picking up an injury yet that doesnt seem to stop them performing for their country.

 

[Tipps69]

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Are you seriously expecting him or anyone to say "No, sorry Man City i'm not worth that much I'll stay here"??

I agree with your point to a degree, our kids think they've made it when they get that contract before actually "doing" anything of note and they are paid far too much too young.

However on your last point,  I heard in an interview that in Spain and probably other places on the continent that a lot of their youth contracts are low (relatively) basic salaries with performance related bonuses etc so in your theory they would be even more concerned about picking up an injury yet that doesnt seem to stop them performing for their country.

 

But they (the players) can't have it both ways, with all the riches available to them personally, there has to be some pressure from their valuations in the open market.

As regards to foreign countries paying less in basic salaries to their young players, it means they have a reason to improve & prove themselves (or just move to England) to get the personal riches. Tammy Abraham rumoured to of doubled his wages after one season at Championship level to £50,000 p/w, that's just obscene for a 19 year-old.

And back to Sterling, with the amount of grief he gets for being 'rubbish' & with the amount of money he 'should' have stashed away, what is his motivation for trying to prove the doubters wrong? He (and numerous other) multimillionaire U25's don't need the grief, they have more riches than the majority of us could only dream of, so why bother? So what if he doesn't win a major honour with England? He doesn't have to work to have a life, he's made that before he even got to 22 years-old!

If you didn't have to do a job that you could get injured in because you'd already made more than enough money to live the rest of your life more than comfortably, would you put your body on the line if you weren't really that bothered? As Sterling appears!