England and the World Cup

[Anders MacGregor-Thunell]

Eriksson's strategy has been to build a team around several key players - seems a fairly sensible idea in a team game at a level where matches are few and far between.

This is a typical Swedish strategy - Henrik Larsson has not been at his best in this game but Lagerbäck would never change him since he is one of the key players. Another one is Olof Mellberg who so far has not played very well either. Zlatan does not have the same status even if he is the "star"! He has a smaller injury (?) but he is also not in such good shape. Therefore it was relatively easy for Lagerbäck to substitute him for Marcus Allbäck.

I think that England stands a fairly good chance on advancement but I don't think it will carry you all the way but that's not only because of Sven-Göran Eriksson. You have some very good players but not enough to be able to win the tournament unless they play more like a team than yesterday. If you do win somebody managed to get England to play like a team...

It was kind of funny though to see the two managers yesterday. They both sat down very calmly without any real emotions. The only difference was Lagerbäcks chewing gum.

[John Simkin]

One of the problems with characters who follow unsuccessful football clubs for most of the year is that they have no idea of how to win, do not recognise success when it comes and also often seem to want to wallow in perceived failure.

England have topped their group and now have an excellent chance to proceed to the quarter finals where hopefully again they will do enough to advance further. This for England is good!

The attacks on the manager are not measured, consistent or justified. Eriksson's strategy has been to build a team around several key players - seems a fairly sensible idea in a team game at a level where matches are few and far between.

It really is quite intolerable to suggest that if England fails it is because of the manager and if England succeeds it is despite of the manager. We can only speculate as to what really prompts this attitude.

I am usually is a small minority with my views on politics. However, on this topic, my views are shared by the vast majority of football writers on the subject. If the phone-ins are anything to go by, these are the views of most football fans as well (followers of the high-income clubs and the “unsuccessful” clubs).

If you read back on other threads, I have been criticising Ericksson’s tactics for the last three years. This included his policy of favouring Michael Owen and David Beckham despite clear signs that as a result of injuries they were no longer good enough to play for England.

I, like most other followers of football, pointed out the madness of only picking four strikers. Two who would never be fit enough to play at this level in the world cup, a man who clearly is not an international striker and a boy of 17 who has never played in our top league.

Of course all good teams are based around the abilities of key figures. However, their current abilities have to reflect this importance. Michael Owen and David Beckham no longer deserve to be automatic choices for the team.

Ericksson has always been a luck manager and the injury to Owen will help him select a better formation (one up front - an unfit Rooney) with a five man midfield. Our best goal scorers are in fact two midfielders who will then be able to attack without worrying too much about their defensive duties. Let us hope that Beckham gets injured and Ericksson plays Aaron Lennon instead.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Let us hope that Beckham gets injured and Ericksson plays Aaron Lennon instead.

Please no. If that happens Posh might not show up for the remaining games, and she's the best reason why anyone would watch the world cup.

http://socialitelife.com/images/beckhamtits.jpg

[Guest]

Let us hope that Beckham gets injured and Ericksson plays Aaron Lennon instead.

Please no. If that happens Posh might not show up for the remaining games, and she's the best reason why anyone would watch the world cup.

http://socialitelife.com/images/beckhamtits.jpg

This observation constitutes the "saddest" and most disturbing thing posted on this forum I have ever read

Even more perverse than Simkin's assertion that the in reality cosmopolitan West Ham first 11 of Welshmen, Irishmen, Israelis and West Indians were all actually born in Dagenham, and that foreign 'English' managers "don't understand the English game".

We can do things for John which may result in him coming up with something a little less touched - perhaps if we leave him alone to think about it in his shed for a while.

For you Raymond I fear we are left with aversion therapy options only - perhaps some really quite violent electro-therapy will get you over the worst of it

[J. Raymond Carroll]

For you Raymond I fear we are left with aversion therapy options only - perhaps some really quite violent electro-therapy will get you over the worst of it

I am willing to accept any kind of therapy, and the more violent the better, as long as this therapy is administered by Posh herself, up close and personal. Of course I insist that my therapy sessions be conducted in the bathtub.

http://www.nrk.no/img/506253.jpeg

[Guest]

For you Raymond I fear we are left with aversion therapy options only - perhaps some really quite violent electro-therapy will get you over the worst of it

I am willing to accept any kind of therapy, and the more violent the better, as long as this therapy is administered by Posh herself, up close and personal. Of course I insist that my therapy sessions be conducted in the bathtub.

http://www.nrk.no/img/506253.jpeg

I do not believe there is a cure for your condition

[John Simkin]

I was fairly pleased with the way England performed against Ecuador. They looked nervous in the first 15 minutes but once they settled down and got used to the new system they did not look like they were going to get beaten.

Although Rooney would probably prefer to play behind another striker, Peter Crouch is not good enough and so it is far better to play with a 5 man midfield where both Gerrard and Lampard can arrive late in the box to score goals. Joe Cole can also score goals from midfield.

David Beckham is also more effective when he plays with Gary Neville. As I said before, the injury to Michael Owen might work to England’s advantage. They might even win the world cup.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I was fairly pleased with the way England performed against Ecuador. .

I now predict that England will win the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. The formula will be simple: Find a truly great goalkeeper, learn to shoot penalties, send Rooney to anger management classes, and play with only ten men.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I have just had a visitation from the ghost of Notradamus, he predicts.

"when the 20 and 10 hold sway"

"blood is seen on the field of play"

"Albions downfall, complete failure"

"penalties, quater final, Australia"

[Guest]

The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination

1. The evil Swede lead us to failure

2. The wicked Portuguese cheated

3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper

All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy

[Guest Stephen Turner]

It was Ronaldo on the grassy knoll.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination

1. The evil Swede lead us to failure

2. The wicked Portuguese cheated

3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper

All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy

I see that Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with the basic principles of Conspiracy Theory.

A conspiracy, by definition, must involve an agreement between a minimum of TWO parties. neither 1. nor 3. above is capable of meeting this definition. The only possible conspiracy in the list above is no. 2, but even that one does not qualify. In order to be a conspiracy, the agreement must contemplate the doing of a wrongful act. Since there is nothing wrong with cheating in football (if the ref. does not see it), then you cannot accuse the press of focussing on conspiracy theories.

Now as for "blame, projection and inaccuracy" I ask you to please leave my wife out of this.

[John Simkin]

The British Press have focussed on three 'conspiracy theorie's to explain England's elimination

1. The evil Swede lead us to failure

2. The wicked Portuguese cheated

3. The stupid Scouser lost his temper

All have the essential features of conspiracy - blame, projection and innacuracy

I see that Mr. Walker is unfamiliar with the basic principles of Conspiracy Theory.

A conspiracy, by definition, must involve an agreement between a minimum of TWO parties. neither 1. nor 3. above is capable of meeting this definition. The only possible conspiracy in the list above is no. 2, but even that one does not qualify. In order to be a conspiracy, the agreement must contemplate the doing of a wrongful act. Since there is nothing wrong with cheating in football (if the ref. does not see it), then you cannot accuse the press of focussing on conspiracy theories.

I would say more a “con trick” than a conspiracy. The FA spent £25m on Sven-Goran Eriksson. He was the highest paid manager of all time. Yet at the end of it, we ended up at the same place where we started. A team that could reach the quarter-finals of major competitions.

In truth, we did not deserve to get that far. As the foreign media pointed out, we were the most boring team in the competition. Eriksson’s main aim was to stop the opposition scoring goals. He was successful in that, except for the game against Sweden. The problem with this strategy is that you also have to score at least one goal a game. Especially when you are incapable of scoring in penalty shoot-outs.

The main problem with Eriksson was that he was totally incompetent. This included an inability to see that if a player is good in one year, this is no guarantee that he would be good the next year. This is especially true when a player suffers a major injury. As a result, players like Beckham and Owen should have been dropped long ago.

A couple of years ago I posted on this forum about the failures of Eriksson management strategy. Like other incompetent managers I have experienced in my working life, Eriksson surrounded himself with yes men. In return for their loyalty, he guaranteed them a place in his squad. Beckham and Owen were two obvious examples of this strategy. Gary Neville and Ashley Cole are two others who were clearly not fit enough to do themselves justice. This was extremely important as both men were overlapping fullbacks and were one of the main reasons why England were such a poor attacking force in Germany.

Eriksson decided several years ago that he intended to play 4-4-2. At the European finals in Portugal Eriksson tried Owen and Rooney together. Although Rooney played well, Owen was disappointing. In the past he had always looked more effective when playing alongside a striker who was good in the air.

However, after the European championships it soon became clear that injuries had blunted Owen’s main asset and he was no longer the player he was. It was at this stage that Eriksson should have started looking for a partner that would bring the best out of Rooney. Going on last year’s performances in the premiership, Darren Bent looked to be the best person to replace Owen. However, he only got one game and did not make the final squad. Instead, Eriksson took Peter Crouch and Theo Walcott. There was a strong argument to have Crouch on the bench so you could play him with ten minutes to go. He definitely provides something different and he can cause problems for defences. However, he is not the sort of striker who will get you many goals. Nor is he the type to bring out the best in Rooney.

The idea of taking Theo Walcott is still a mystery. Would any international manager in the world have taken a player who was unable to get a place in a premiership side? He had not shown he could score goals at the top level (his record in the championship was far from remarkable). When Eriksson was asked why he did not play Walcott when Owen was injured against Sweden, he replied, I did not think he was ready to play in the world cup. If that is the case, why did he take him? His answer to that question was that he wanted to give Walcott experience of being at a major tournament. That makes sense and most of the teams took promising youngsters with them to Germany. However, they did not put them in the squad. This madness was reinforced by only taking four strikers. This was especially a problem as two of the strikers, Owen and Rooney, were returning from injury and were clearly unfit. Crouch was seen as someone to come off the bench (this was proved when Eriksson refused to start a game with a Rooney-Crouch partnership) and the fourth striker Walcott was too inexperienced to play. He left out a fifth striker so he could take a midfielder, Jermaine Jenas, who did not kick a ball in the tournament.

No it is no conspiracy. Just another example of incompetence.

[Guest]

The main problem with Eriksson was that he was totally incompetent.

Nice to read such a balanced view

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The main problem with Eriksson was that he was totally incompetent.

Nice to read such a balanced view

Up to the Portugal game the England team always did enough to win. I think the European press (echoed by the american press) are being totally illogical when they say that England deserved to lose to Portugal, after playing magnificently for the final hour, because they played boring football in preceding games. That argument shows just how silly the press can be.

That argument reminds me of the top racing writers in America who, two years ago, assured their readers that Smarty Jones could not win the Kentucky Derby because no unbeaten horse had won the derby in over 40 years. Well, Smarty fooled them all, and refused to allow the fact that he was unbeaten to stop him from winning again.

But John is absolutely right about Eriksson, because England have the talent available and Eriksson abused it. Even the penalty faulures can be laid at Eriksson's door, for the same reason that Ireland blames Mick McCarthy for the penalty failures in the last World Cup.

I would be interested to hear everyone's views on the red-carding of Wayne Rooney. Of course there is a FIFA investigation pending, and maybe that will clarify matters (maybe not). American TV showed only the briefest replays, but I got the distinct impression that the groin-kick was entirely accidental. Anyway, it appears the referree did not witness it. Was the pushing of Reynaldo sufficient justification for the expulsion of Rooney? are there any analogous incidents from the 2006 World Cup?

No conspiracy theory here, but has anyone checked with Ladbrokes to see if the ref. had a wager on Portugal?