It could be. But given the obvious English bias we all know what the sentiment is.Originally Posted by DeLorean
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
That Iceland game was painful to watch. Really and truly got hockeyed. It is a shame because it takes away from how efficient and successful Iceland have been in maximising the limited playing resources available to them. Now Iceland's achievements prior to the French game are minimised and discounted as the failings of the English team - ie the Telegraph headline.
Apparently (unverified) France's record in home tournament games is 15-2-0 so not a bad effort by Ireland in the circumstances.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
Coming through their group undefeated with five points had nothing to do with England's failings, neither did beating Czech Rep, Netherlands and Turkey in qualification. It was a bad way to exit but I wouldn't agree at all that their achievement in minimised/discounted. I was glad they scored a couple in the second half at least to give their fans something extra to celebrate. Thankfully the English media don't represent society and its perceptions as a whole.
A quick Google tells me they exited the 1938 World Cup on home soil to Italy (1-3).
But it does. It admirable how efficient Iceland have been with the playing resources at their disposal but their approach to the game is simplistic and capitalises on the inability of more talented teams to break them down while maximising usage of the little ball possession they have. Similar to Northern Ireland. The way France tore them apart exposes bare how weak the Icelandic team actually is and discounts the merits of prior results - ie the England game and qualification.
Really?
Netherlands had their worst qualification campaign ever. They were a very poor side throughout the campaign.
Czech and Turkey went home in the group stages. Czech didn't win a game and Turkey only managed one win (against Czech). And they were the other two teams in Netherlands group so shows how poor Netherlands were (and maybe the group as a whole) - so maybe we shouldn't be holding up those results as an example of Iceland's strength.
Traditionally big names, but not really any more.
My perception of Iceland is a small team that achieved something amazing. But my perception is that they are still a small team. They haven't become great over night and the French result somewhat brought this back to earth. And yes, the English really should look at themselves and question why they couldn't have beaten them.
Was happy to see Iceland get so far, but didn't think they were all that much too, which is fair enough all things considering. As for the Basel player, he is rubbish, head down type who loses the ball all the time.
France were the first half decent team they met.........but heh thats just my opinion.....
You are correct, they haven't become a good team overnight, it has taken some 15 years of steady marked improvement to get this good.
But perhaps Iceland have to perform to a unique golden standard, they are required to perform with absolute consistency in order to prove they are something special?
That performing poorly to Europe's best in the last 8 of a Finals, means that proves they were small all along, that one bad result provides enough evidence to revise the worth of a long string of impressive results achieved since 2011 and all against the odds.
Perhaps Iceland's u21s incredibly simple football style will eventually be exposed in a tired nervy performance against the best u21 team at the 2017 finals, by a team who are at the top of their game and then we can all breathe a sigh of relief because it proves we were right all along, Iceland u21s were just small and rolled the dice since 2010 with their victories.
Then the ladies must also be on one hell of a roll, fluking it against superior opponents as they qualify for yet another Euro finals, where no doubt they will be exposed by some euro super team.
No one is claiming that these players are the bees knees, the vast majority won't be candidates for top clubs in the top leagues, no one is claiming they are. To spend time wondering about how small Iceland's team is, just misses the pointy by a country mile.
Similar to basketball and handball, the football coaching system is egalitarian, it's more for developing football skills for all kids, both sexes, regardless of skill levels and future prospects.
The germane lessons can be found in analysing the reasons for the steady consistent improvement in football over all the age groups and over both sexes. Improved to the position where qualification/play offs are the standard and less than that is only a cue for greater effort. Some may not find that standard remarkable for such a small isolated nation like Iceland, then just (politely) píss off and wallow in some pseudo elitism.
In 2001 unsatisfied with not achieving potential, the Icelandic FA devoted all the sparse cash lying about, to developing a licensed coaching system.
At the same time various components of the society collaborated to act in the interests of developing sports facilities for every kid, as if it's their civil right.
Build one indoor pitch, then every club wants one, it becomes the new standard.
There are things which are naturally unique and not possible to replicate or not needed elsewhere but there are other experiences that can and that imo has to do with attitude, philosophy, just plain common sense to act in the interests of all children/youth, not just an elite group separated from the rest.
No bigger country than Iceland can now justifiably complain that they haven't got the player pool. O'Neill moaning about his lack of options might just be greeted with some sustained healthy scepticism.
My wife told me something the other day, something I never knew, that as a kid way back in 1967 her father brought her to see Iceland play Denmark in Copenhagen, they were beaten 17-2, I said that was worse than it sounds because Denmark were really cráp then.
They did amazing! Well done and yes the improvements have been coming along slowly for a while it seems.
My opinion though is that they are not world beaters yet. Small I don't mean minnows like maybe they were in 1967! Small like Ireland etc just not a top tier team. Small in the sense that the French result wasn't a big shock and the English result is a poor reflection on England as much as anything else.
Ireland made last 8 in Europe in 1988. Ireland made last 8 in the world in 1990. And competed like we belonged there both times. We were even ranked 6th in the world officially at one stage. Icelands achievement are amazing in the same way that Ireland's achievements were back then. But Ireland were never a big team. Just a small country where everything clicked and punched above our weight and did something really special.
The point that I was making was that Iceland achieved a great thing but not because they have the greatest players or team or football structure but for a moment everything went right for them. And as such England, a supposedly top tier team, need to reflect on what went wrong especially in light of the French result.
By the way. What was with the last minute goal in the last group game. 3rd in the group and they had Croatia/Poland/Wales ie the same route to the final that Portugal are taking. Honestly with Icelands improving results and Portugal's poor level of performance being sufficient so far to keep progressing and on that side then why not Iceland. But the goal propelled them into 2nd in their group and into the England/France/Germany side of the draw...
Iceland's success at the euros is related to street smartness rather than underlying structural improvements, how honourable they may be. See Northern Ireland. Do we relate the recent achievements of the North's team to the emotional building of a hall? Or do we see them for what they actually are?
Lasse Lagerbäck achieved success with Sweden by employing similar tactics to those with Iceland. The emphasis with Lagerbäck is defensive soundness, organisation, teamwork and effectiveness in possession rather than technical competence. Boring but effective.
It doesn't discount the strides they had made up until that point. They met the favourites for the tournament and took a sound beating, it happens. Iceland's results and achievements up until that point will stand the test of time, just as much as France beating them 5-2 will.
So you think the English media represent global perceptions? Fair enough, I don't.
Exactly, my whole point. Who cares if it's not the greatest Czech or Dutch sides? It's still phenomenal that Iceland have got to and exceeded their level. And let's not be too selective, they also drew with a Portugal side who, by hook or by crook, could easily reach the final. They beat (and eliminated) an Austria side who only dropped two points in qualification and and English side who didn't drop any. Sure those teams have failings as well, but Iceland were good enough to expose them. What more can really be expected from them? Of course they're not world beaters yet, and probably never will be.
Has anybody suggested otherwise? The whole point is that the are overachieving for their population, history, etc. Even if they win the World Cup they will be a small team that have won the World Cup! Leicester City are still a small club, relatively speaking, despite winning the Premier League.
That silly winning mentality was always going to count against them eventually.
Last edited by DeLorean; 05/07/2016 at 7:38 AM.
On David's last point which you quoted there DeL, I like others did not see them beating England, however I can say with utmost sincerity that they would have been unlikely to achieve that same feat against Croatia had they played them simply because Croatia would have been no where near as naive as England turned out to be. So for Iceland the right side of the draw was probably this side of the draw.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
The French annihilated Iceland to the point the emotional unattached is questioning how could X,Y and England drop points/ lose against that Icelandic team. Foot.ie might applaud the Icelandic peoples' great strides in building a hall. Alas the rest are questioning the pampered lifestyles of players in their academy halls.
Ok.
I'm not disagreeing with the notion that France's comprehensive win puts further scrutiny on England's failure. I just think that's a side show compared with the bigger picture i.e. Iceland's rise from obscurity. Obviously it's more than a side show in England itself, where they're more concerned with their own failings, naturally enough.
Last edited by DeLorean; 05/07/2016 at 9:40 AM.
Statistically speaking England is the team to play in any last 16 game in any tournament. I love the stat that Wales has won more k/o games in under a week than England has in 20 years.
Maybe we shouldn't laugh so loud - they've won more knock out games in a week than we have ever.
I still think it's funny!
Anyway, I'm struggling to call the outcome of either semi-final. I hope they're good matches.
Jonathan Wilson on the success of 3-5-2 at this Euros:
https://www.theguardian.com/football...onathan-wilson
That defensive use of a back three is not new – it has been quite frequently used by teams whose sole aim is not to concede. When Estudiantes beat Vélez Sarsfield to the Argentinian Apertura in 2010-11, for instance, they secured a goalless draw away at Vélez that effectively sealed the title with a back three against a 4-3-3.
Nerd alert!
But beyond the theory, there is a sense that Wales and Italy used a back three because it was best for the players they have available. Antonio Conte likes his teams to press high up the pitch. At Bari, Atalanta and Siena he did that with a back four but at Juventus he found Andrea Barzagli, Leonardo Bonucci and Giorgio Chiellini. Conte adapted to get all three in the team.
...the choice of shape was a practical response to the available options. It was never an issue of ideology.
This is why I think we should look at it. Not because of an ideological predilection (though I admit I love 352) but because it’d suit us, it’d suit our players and their strengths, because nobody would be asked to do a role that doesn’t suit him. I loved the balance of our 2002 side, a 442 with square pegs in square holes, partnerships and combinations in every key segment. Wales have this lovely balance in their system and I think we’d have it if we used it.
Like you I love 3-5-2 and have been so frustrated over the years as to why we don't play it given then available players.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks