i wish harry was staying at spurs. his regime there has clearly run its course and is already in decline. the spurs fans think it's better than ever but the truth is spurs' position flatters them; they're only there because chelsea and arsenal have completely collapsed. if harry stayed at spurs, they would slowly but inevitably choke on the accumulation of expensive stopgap signings and sink back into mid table, before harry was hounded out. with him heading to england they have the chance to appoint someone who thinks more than 24 hours ahead.

To be fair it's more down to them not having midweek european games. 50 points from 24 games is european form in any season, but they wouldn't be able to pull that off if they were playing two games every week.

England's record in tournaments over the last 20 years is comparable to a team like Sweden or Denmark. However, they would rather die than regard themselves as a Sweden/Denmark type of team.

Yup; we're not that good...

Jimbags wrote:
We could be contenders...if we somehow manage to avoid the 'major powers' since we've never actually managed to beat one of them in the latter stages on foreign soil, and we've had better teams than this along the way.

I know, I know, but... Gazza failing to connect by inches in extra time against Germany in 96... Sol Campbell's disallowed header against Argentina in 98... I could go on and on. Bottom line, I don't know if England were obviously the weaker team against:

Germany in 1990
Germany in 1996
Argentina in 1998
Portugal in 2004
Portugal in 2006

I am not even English btw, I am Scottish, so I don't think I am biased in this respect.

Analogue Bubblebath II wrote:
England's record in tournaments over the last 20 years is comparable to a team like Sweden or Denmark. However, they would rather die than regard themselves as a Sweden/Denmark type of team.

Denmark have won a tournament and beaten a major nation in the knockout stages in the last 20 years. That's more than we've ever managed in a tournament we didn't host.

I was being kind.

Mind you, Denmark fail to qualify for tournaments a lot more frequently than England, though of course this is to be expected when there are only 5 million people in the entire country.

The Swedes have got to two semi-finals in that period. They have also tended to have the better of their numerous meetings with England.

They appear to be pretty crap at the moment, though, so it looks like being between England and Ukraine for second place unless something weird happens.

Analogue Bubblebath II wrote:
They appear to be pretty crap at the moment, though, so it looks like being between England and Ukraine for second place unless something weird happens.

Something weird happens every tournament. I'm not sure which tournament the Swedes have been mentioned as contenders for the semi-final.

Maybe 2000, but I never understood those expectations. We didn't have any creativity in midfield, and only one forward to speak of. But, first and foremost, Hedman was first choice keeper.

In the last twenty years, both countries have only twice outperformed England in a major championship. Denmark in 1992 and 1998, Sweden in 1994 and 2008.

England have outperformed Denmark four times and Sweden five times, not to mention the fact that your 20 years cut off is a conveniently arbitrary way of coming in just after England lost a WC semi-final on penalty kicks, but just before the sole last four appearance that either Scandinavian side has managed since 1984.

Denmark have won a tournament in living memory. I think that blows England's modest little collection of quarter-finals and last-16 exits out of the water, to be honest.

To say nothing of the fact that England have five or six times the resources of both countries.

But if you are irked by 20 years being the cut-off point, why not make it 30, and that way we can include the best Danish side there has ever been, one which was a superior footballing unit to any England team since 1966.

Yes, Denmark have won a tournament and England haven't. Equally this applies to Greece, and they both demonstrate that in tournament football relatively small countries are capable of winning.

They are though, as you put it, 'under-resourced' and all three countries DNQ or fail to get out of the group stages a lot more often than England do.

So although Denmark have reached higher heights than England, we do better than them more often than they do better than us. England are not 'that type of team' in the sense that getting into the knock-out stages is an above-average achievement. England have only failed to qualify for one of the last eight World Cups, Denmark have been absent from four.

England should, of course, be judging themselves against nations of similar wealth, population size and football popularity. These are France, Spain, Italy and Germany. That our record is considerably poorer than all of those, and Holland, is to the shame of football in this country. But neither is England's record so poor that we're a 'type of team' who are less than a 50-50 shot at qualifying for a tournament and getting out of the group.

Torcida wrote:
Jimbags wrote:
We could be contenders...if we somehow manage to avoid the 'major powers' since we've never actually managed to beat one of them in the latter stages on foreign soil, and we've had better teams than this along the way.

I know, I know, but... Gazza failing to connect by inches in extra time against Germany in 96... Sol Campbell's disallowed header against Argentina in 98...

Well yes, if England were allowed to have goals stand even when they've fouled opponents and be given them if they've almost connected with a cross or pass they'd do better at tournaments. So would every team in the world.

Torcida wrote:


England have actually quite a talented team

The talents are in a limited range though, aren't they? That of stamina, speed & physicality which are all essential but best allied to a level of ability in passing and possession that England rarely show at tournaments.

If I were English, I would also be concerned that their better players, like Cole, Ferdinand & Rooney are not performing to anything like their full capabilities at the moment.

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:
Yes, Denmark have won a tournament and England haven't. Equally this applies to Greece, and they both demonstrate that in tournament football relatively small countries are capable of winning.

They are though, as you put it, 'under-resourced' and all three countries DNQ or fail to get out of the group stages a lot more often than England do.

So although Denmark have reached higher heights than England, we do better than them more often than they do better than us. England are not 'that type of team' in the sense that getting into the knock-out stages is an above-average achievement. England have only failed to qualify for one of the last eight World Cups, Denmark have been absent from four.

England should, of course, be judging themselves against nations of similar wealth, population size and football popularity. These are France, Spain, Italy and Germany. That our record is considerably poorer than all of those, and Holland, is to the shame of football in this country. But neither is England's record so poor that we're a 'type of team' who are less than a 50-50 shot at qualifying for a tournament and getting out of the group.

Well, another way of looking at it is that Croatia, South Korea, the Czech Republic and Uruguay have all reached the last four more recently than England. Turkey have done it twice and Greece have won a tournament.

I mean, we can debate about what's the best cut-off point, 20 years, 22 years, 10 years or whatever, but that's shocking. If someone had said after Euro 96 that Turkey would get to two semis in the next eight tournaments and England would get to none, we'd have called for the men in white coats.

I'd happily see Ireland miss five tournaments in a row if I knew for a fact that we were going to do something very special at the sixth one.

Well yes, I wouldn't deny that England have underachieved, and the reasons are well-versed on OTF.

Yes, it would have been a surprise that England hadn't made semi-finals. But even the most ardent ABE members on here should concede they've had bad luck in not reaching that stage - most notably QF defeats on penalties in 2004 and 2006. While to say the least, South Korea and Uruguay had extremely good fortune in reaching WC semi-finals. That's tournament football though.

It doesn't mean England are in this growing list of a 'type of team' - and by all means add Bulgaria to it - of countries for whom getting to a tournament and through the group stage is a considerable achievement.

England are probably in a category of their own, which they formerly co-habited with Spain, of a nation with good resources and a consistent tournament record, who can't quite produce a generation where everything clicks and they do 'something special'. Maybe it will change one day, quite possibly it with our attitudes and coaching etc it won't, but England fans can still rightfully expect to outperform 'that sort of country' a lot more often than they don't.

I think our biggest shortcomings in international tournaments are not tactical or technical ineptitude (a lot, far too much is made of that in my eyes) its that we arent smart or savvy enough to grind out wins v equal or superior opponents via a little gamesmanship. Or cheating. Whatever you prefer to call it.

Historically teams who've succeeded in international football have been useful at the dark arts, the game within the game, the covert stuff that, all things being equal separates winners from losers, the champs from the chumps.

There exists this misperception amongst the English footballing public that to win you have to outpass, outshoot, outcreate everyone, play teams off the park. You don't. You have to outfox them. And in a battle of wits between a fox and a bulldog I'm taking the fox everytime.

Yean, one only has to think of Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard and Alan Shearer to realise that England don't indulge in enough "gamesmanship" and that's what stops them winning tournaments.

You're taking the piss, right? If not it's the dumbest thing I've ever read on here.

They should give it to an experienced international manager like hiddink at least till the end of the euros.

Ah yes, Spain, those old masters of the dark arts, cheating their way past those good honest Dutch bulldogs...

They should get Gordon Ramsay

henry wrote:
Ah yes, Spain, those old masters of the dark arts, cheating their way past those good honest Dutch bulldogs...

Thats a very small sample size. I raise your Spain '10 and give you Italy '82, Italy '06, the hand of God in '86, Klinnsmanns theatrics in '90, Rivaldo's in 02.