Germany vs England

[shakermaker1982]

I agree with Stutts. That disallowed goal was important - one can never say how it would have gone after that. I would be gutted if I were an English fan. Sure Germany were the better team but that doesn't mean their would have won as their 3rd and 4th goals were catching England on the break. What was the point in England pushing so many players up for Lampard's shot since he wasn't going to cross the ball and they then get caught on the break. Capello has a lot to answer for and as for bringing on Heskey with 15 minutes to go - baffling.

As for the anti-BBC Panel brigade, they must be very disappointed as they were very scathing of the whohe team performance from manager to players to system.

Shaker, why did you want to hear what Dunphy says? Isn't is predictable except he wont mention that he recommended people to back England before the tournament! I am sure he is being kept back for this evening so he can really lay in once the game was over. I thought it was great to see that Brady still felt the anger and hate most of us still feel for Blatter. It was palpable.

I don't like Dunphy but I think he'd have really gone to town on that mob in an entertaining manner last night. We all know Dunphy's opinions change like the wind but backing England just before the tournament shows he hasn't got a clue but we all knew that anyway!

It continues to amaze me time after time that 'experts' still think that English side is made up of top class international players who can perform as a team at a major tournament.

To be fair to the fans over here this time around they were a little bit realistic with their expectations. The media tried to ram it down their throats (sell more papers, ad space etc?) but most English football fans I know (mates & colleagues) knew they'd have done well if they got to a Q Final again.

Stevie Me tried to win the game on his own. Disgraceful selfish performance.

Tets - if Scholes had agreed to come back (now Scholes was world class in his prime and even at 35 he'd still have improved that team because he wouldn't give the ball away, take note Barry, Lampard & Gerrard) I think he'd have taken Barry's space in front of the back 4 but because his legs have gone he'd have to have had played 5 in MF with Rooney up top on his own.

[endabob1]

Lampard was angry at the error but added: "Maybe we showed a bit of desperation and naivety in trying to push and push. We were caught on sucker punches in counter-attacks. It is the story of the game: nobody can stand here and tell me Germany were a lot better than us. They were not 4-1 better than us. But things have conspired against us. Maybe we have conspired against ourselves at times, but it just didn't go for us."

Deluded or what? Lampard is a fraud of a footballer, his whole game is about blasting the ball whenever he's within 30 yards of goal, it's all about him. Fortunately for him Chelsea set their team up around him so it plays to his strengths, with England he consistently fails to perform because he's actually expected to play.
Capello should have dropped either Lampard or Gerrard to bring balance to that midfield, it's been clear for years. I'd have had Carrick (or Tom Huddlestone) in there too as he can keep the ball, something very few other England player seems capable of. Joe Cole on the left as he sprovides something different and comes in behind the strikers leaving space for Ashley Cole to get forward and Lennon wide right. The key then is to pick a right back who will stay back, like Corluka at Spurs, he doesn't get forward too much and take up the same space as the winger, Johnson kept doing it in the first 2 games.
The lack of pace in the centre of Englands back 4 was a major problem, even when fit King isn't as quick as he used to be but I would have him ahead of any of the other pretenders.

To me it's patently obvious when you go through the team they were never going to be contenders, refusal to put faith in youth meant that James was the preferred choice in Goal when Joe Hart should have been [property blooded in the warm up games.
The back 4 is paper thin, no real cover for either full back and agonizingly slow centre backs meant that against pace they were always in trouble.
The midfield is completely unbalanced by trying to shoehorn in 2 identikit players and up front the striking option of Rooney and one other from Heskey, Crouch or Defoe. Hesky does provide a foil for Rooney but this means you have 2 players in the team for one position, if Rooney doesn't play well (which he hasn't been) then there are no goals in the front 2.
If Crouch plays the temptation to smack long balls to him is too much to resist, he's fine as a late option of the bench but no more in my opinion, Defoe is quick and sharp and at least encourages England to move the ball quickly, he has his faults, he's offside way too much, and is a bit of an Andy Cole, hit and hope merchant, that siad of the 4 he was the best option but it says a lot about the state of England's squad that it's the case!

The BBC comment quoted here that none of the Germans would make the England team is laughable, I was actually doing the same thing (because our commentator said as the team were walking out that the English players play at a higher level, as the camera panned over Upson & James) & I ended up with 7 Germans and 4 English!!

[bennocelt]

Wouldnt Bent have been an option, better than Heskey anyway. Im not a fan of Bent, but he has had a good season with over 20 goals. How many goals did Heskey get last season?

[ifk101]

I think you have to point the finger at Capello.

When England got the ball there wasn't any clear gameplan set in motion. By this I mean it didn't look like England had identified how they could beat the Germans. It was more a case of finding somebody to pass the ball to and keep possession rather than looking to do something constructive with the ball. As already been stated, a fundamental problem England have is that their first touch is very heavy. At the highest level of the game, they are not capable of controlling the pace of the game because they lack the technical ability to do so. Capello wants to bring a continental style into the English game but you probably can't do that with senior English internationals that already have a set way of playing. Changing how the England team plays at senior level is something that takes time and needs to be addressed at grassroot levels. What Capello didn't do is played to the strengths that makes his squad important players in their respective clubs and league.

Barry was exposed for the average footballer he is but I don't think England had a set plan to deal with the German midfield. With Germany playing three in the middle, it looked like England's centre halves were in two minds as to whether they should offer support to Barry and Lampard in midfield or if they should keep a more rigid positioning. The first two goals Germany scored were clear examples of poor positioning and a lack of basic organisation.

I don't understand why Capello replaced Milner with Cole. Milner was the player offering England width while Cole likes to dribble inside. It seems that once the clock hit the 60min mark Capello had decided that he needed to make a sub. I didn't see any pressing reason for making that change other than it being a change made for the sake of making a change. England up to that point in the second half were the better team and had Germany on the back foot. Bringing on Cole handed the game back to the Germans.

[Den Perry]

Some fool texted / emailed the Ray D'Arcy show this morning and said someting along the lines of "i'm not an England fan or anything, but Klose was a mile offside for his goal,"

This is just evidence of the type of know all idiot who texts this show to complain.Obviously the fool didn't know you can't be offside for a goal kick. And the fool reading it(i.e Ray D'arcy) didn't know it either. Yet he is the one who will compare footballers to rugby players and hurlers, and bitch about soccer, and he doesn't even know the rules. It doesn't say much for the clowns editing the texts / mails either

[tetsujin1979]

Tets - if Scholes had agreed to come back (now Scholes was world class in his prime and even at 35 he'd still have improved that team because he wouldn't give the ball away, take note Barry, Lampard & Gerrard) I think he'd have taken Barry's space in front of the back 4 but because his legs have gone he'd have to have had played 5 in MF with Rooney up top on his own.

Possibly, but that would leave the side without a defensive player in the middle of the park (assuming Milner stayed on the right). Scholes' lack of tackling ability is the stuff of legend. Personally, I think Lampard would have been the one sacrificed. Capello hasshown he's willing to play Gerrard on the left. He's terrible there, but Capello will at least move him, Lampard has never played anywhere other than central midfield.

Another point, I still think he'll be managing England in the European Championship qualifiers, but hypothetically if Capello is sacked or resigns after this, he'll still have a string of top European clubs looking for his signature as manager. How many of England's players have enhanced their reputations after the World Cup, and how many of them can look for move to the same clubs? Think about that when you look for who to blame.

[osarusan]

if Capello is sacked or resigns after this, he'll still have a string of top European clubs looking for his signature as manager. How many of England's players have enhanced their reputations after the World Cup, and how many of them can look for move to the same clubs? Think about that when you look for who to blame.

Capello will be a sought-after manager because of what he's achieved prior to this world cup. It certainly hasn't enhanced his reputation.

He may escape a certain amount of criticsim because of the idea that he's a coach of such talent that this england campaign simply had to be down to the faults of the players, but the fact remains that he took a squad of decent, good and excellent players to the WC and failed to get to them to play to their potential. He has to accept at least part responsibility for that.

[pineapple stu]

Did Martin Tyler really blame foreigners? Foreigners set the standard in the EPL and allow the few English players with real talent to shine.

I don't really agree with this, actually. I think it is very much at the root of the problem. (Though I should firstly point out that it's not Johnny Foreigner per se, but the quick-fix, need results now mentality in English football.)

Firstly, the pool of English players is smaller than German, Spanish and Italian players. This notes that 38% of players (265) in the Premiership were English (I assume the total includes every player who made an appearance). That compares to 49% (275) of Bundesliga players who are German, 59% (375) of Serie A players who are Italian and 66% (386) of La Liga players who are Spanish (just to look at the big four leagues). In addition, there are 7 Germans playing in the other three leagues, 16 Italians, 20 Spanish and 2 English (trivia question - name the two?). So if we assume that, to be considered for the national squad, you must be playing at the top level in one of those four leagues, you have a pool of 267 English players, 282 Germans, 391 Italians and 406 Spanish players; Germany lags behind in absolute terms cos there's only 18 teams in the Bundesliga and 20 in the other three leagues. So first factor - England have a noticeably smaller pool of players to pick from.

The reason for this - I think, and feel free to counter-argue - is that there is a more marked "do or die, winner takes all, relegation means losing this massive amount of money" mentality in England than in the other three. If you're just above relegation, you splash out the cash on a new player to help you improve. That new player will more than likely come from abroad and so not be English.

It's all well and good to say that if an English player is good enough, he'll make the team anyway, and these quality players will only improve the local game, but I don't actually agree with that at all. At UCD, we're constantly producing quality young players. Players don't improve by playing in the stiffs, they don't improve by playing against good quality players in training - they improve by being given the time to develop in the first team, in a competitive environment. So I do think that by going for the quick fix of a couple of million on a new foreign player at the expense of giving a home-grown player time to develop, the national team is being hindered.

I'm sure footballing culture comes into it as well - the lack of coaching credentials among English managers compared to abroad, for example, must hinder the national team. But don't underestimate the negative impact of simply not playing English players in the Premiership.

[shakermaker1982]

Possibly, but that would leave the side without a defensive player in the middle of the park (assuming Milner stayed on the right). Scholes' lack of tackling ability is the stuff of legend. Personally, I think Lampard would have been the one sacrificed. Capello hasshown he's willing to play Gerrard on the left. He's terrible there, but Capello will at least move him, Lampard has never played anywhere other than central midfield.

Another point, I still think he'll be managing England in the European Championship qualifiers, but hypothetically if Capello is sacked or resigns after this, he'll still have a string of top European clubs looking for his signature as manager. How many of England's players have enhanced their reputations after the World Cup, and how many of them can look for move to the same clubs? Think about that when you look for who to blame.

Scholes plays in front of back 4 at Man Utd now so he could have gone down that route. He'd need a Carrick to do his leg work for him (maybe Barry) but I don't think he'd have dropped Lampard. I would have ditched Lamps personally long ago. I reckon Capello would have opted for this.....

-Rooney

Gerrard - Lampard - Carrick - Lennon

-Scholes

[Stuttgart88]

Pineapple Stu, my point was more that players Like Gerrard & Lampard would be unable to shine like they have done if they were relying on the likes of Barry and players of a similar standard as teammates. Instead Gerrard had players like Alonso, Mascherano and Hamann while Lampard has had Essien, Makele and general quality all around him for the last 5 years. Would the so called Gerrard Miracle of 2005 have been possible without Hamann, Alonso & Smicer (not to mention Dudek, Gerrard's dive and unmentioned gift of a 3rd goal to Milan )?

[Dodge]

Except the Gerrard miracle only happened when Benitiez pushed him to right back to accomodte hamann (after Liverpool were overran in the first half)...

I honestly believe the media (particularly sky) have their part to play in this. Gerrard is a good quality international player (but no more) but he's hyped beyond hype. This year at Liverpool he had to cope without Alonso and his limits were shown. Likewise Lampard has always had a ball winer with him at Chelsea (makele, Essien) but when asked to do it himself he's simply not up to it. Then they wonder why both players don't do it for England? (and to prove its not limited to English players, Sky consistently talk about Fabregas as the "best midfielder in the world" yet he can't get in the Spanish team ahead of Xavi, Iniesat, Alonso and even Busquets (in an obviously different role)

The English team is made up of players who aren't close to being the best players for their team (bar Rooney) yet even players like Glen Johnson are called "one of the greatest attacking right fulls in the world". its bizarre.

[dantheman]

[Stuttgart88]

Roy Keane was just priceless on Sky Sports News. I normally have no time for his rent-a-gob comments, but he was just asked about the team spirit, the manager and all that at England, especially given his experience in '02. Cue ice cold stare, followed by "what sources? what comments?" and then saying his "issue" was about lack of organisation and being accused of faking injury, but adding he had no issue with the team. Please don't use this post to start another Saipan debate!

He then went on to support Capello ("great manager", "genius 6 weeks ago") and said - as we all know - that good players don't necessarily make good teams. The next bit was best though: you've got to blame the players. Who are these world class players anyway? Rooney, yes - great season. James - no, didn't have a great season. Johnson, no. Terry, poor season - Chelsea's attackers won the league not him. Upson - nearly got relegated, Green - nearly got relegated. Cole - in fairness, just back from injury. Gerrard - poor season, Heskey - 3 goals, says it all, Milner - good season, Barry - poor season. So who are these "great" players? I didn't see any!

He was bang on really - pretty much saying what Dodge said!

[Dodge]

I feel dirty

[ArdeeBhoy]

England just aren't very good. Even their supposed 'Golden Generation'. And long may it continue.

[Stuttgart88]

Michael Owen blames the formation and tactics in today's Telegraph, and saying nobody can tell him that England's players aren't as good as Germany's. Can I start? Nobody in England's team is as good as Schweinsteiger (class yesterday), Lahm and Oezil. Owen says this every year. It's like Alan Shearer in WC2006 (can't remember was it at the semi-final or final stage) when he said that there isn't a player left in the tournament who'd get in England's team. God it's funny sometimes. Shearer was in denial again yesterday: hugely critical of the performance but blaming it on something being wrong in the camp. Maybe they "eh..uh...just didn't get stuck in" (to paraphrase his hapless explanation for being 2-0 down to Croatia at half-time in 2007).

[pineapple stu]

Pineapple Stu, my point was more that players Like Gerrard & Lampard would be unable to shine like they have done if they were relying on the likes of Barry and players of a similar standard as teammates.

Mis-read slightly you on that, but I do think that the amount of foreigners in the Premiership is hurting the national team as well. So yeah, Gerrard is a Champions' League winner not because he's great, but because of the others in the squad alright. But if you buy in a player in a time of crisis over giving the young players a chance, then the young players will never develop fully.

(So we're kind of agreeing with each other to an extent, I think)

[Charlie Darwin]

Michael Owen blames the formation and tactics in today's Telegraph, and saying nobody can tell him that England's players aren't as good as Germany's. Can I start? Nobody in England's team is as good as Schweinsteiger (class yesterday), Lahm and Oezil. Owen says this every year. It's like Alan Shearer in WC2006 (can't remember was it at the semi-final or final stage) when he said that there isn't a player left in the tournament who'd get in England's team. God it's funny sometimes. Shearer was in denial again yesterday: hugely critical of the performance but blaming it on something being wrong in the camp. Maybe they "eh..uh...just didn't get stuck in" (to paraphrase his hapless explanation for being 2-0 down to Croatia at half-time in 2007).

This would be the same Michael Owen who said not a single member of the Croatian side would get into an England team shortly after they'd roundly beat them twice in Euro qualifiers. It's a conceit that goes right to the heart of England's continued failure in international football.

At UCD, we're constantly producing quality young players. Players don't improve by playing in the stiffs, they don't improve by playing against good quality players in training - they improve by being given the time to develop in the first team, in a competitive environment. So I do think that by going for the quick fix of a couple of million on a new foreign player at the expense of giving a home-grown player time to develop, the national team is being hindered.

This is a very good point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this positive approach to football has only come about since Pete Mahon left? UCD and Bray don't have the best raw materials around but they seem to have managers and club structures that encourage an emphasis on technique and adventure. Perhaps it is, as your analysis imply, that yo-yo clubs have less to lose by adopting this approach.

[pineapple stu]

No, we've always been throwing youngsters into the first team; it's part of the club's ethos (partly cos it's all we can afford!).

[Charlie Darwin]

Ah, I went to see yous a few times when a couple of people I knew were in the team and you played some awful football. The team this year might actually be weaker but they put in better performances.