McClaren blames loss on absentees

'Your country needs you'

unlikely to resist the publicity that would create. Venables will want to create a buzz around the team again, what better way to do it. Again, not saying he's the answer, but his inclusion guarantees reinvigorating interest in the national team which to be fair, lots of apathy around after failure in Germany etc.

 

Who's supplying the crosses for Crouch?

SWP? with Gerrard out wide we weaken the middle, no brainer, Israel are 2nd in the group, we dont look like scoring...the game after that is at The Nou Camp innit......hmmmm....some headlines in that, El Tel and that.

 

i agree

i think he would be happy to do anything for his country, be it sit on the bench or whatever.

the bloke is an absolute legend in my opinion.

 

RE: Who's supplying the crosses for Crouch?

Richards did more when he got on the pitch then SWP will do in 12 games.

 

Phil Neville

just that.

 

Whilever he insists on playing two right footed players down the left and insisting on playing Crouch, we're in trouble. As much as Crouch's scoring record is good for England, good defenders will have him in their pockets. Puyol leant into him twice and he might as well have gone home.

SWP has ruined his career by going to Chelsea - he isn't half the player he was two years ago. Carrick had a 'mare, Lampard and Gerrard can't play together, which means Lampard must be dropped. Dyer looked lost in whatever role he was meant to be playing, and Downing is not international class full stop. Barry is a much better left back than Phil Neville, mind.

 

Ferguson has been talking Carrick up all season,

Yet still seems intent on signing Owen Hargreaves. mmmmmmmmmmmm!</p>

Carrick is the new Ray Wilkins , he picks up a 3 yard pass from the CH's then passes 3 yards to someone else. Utterly pointless!</p>

Lampard is the new David Platt , although Platt was never touted as one of the greatest midfielders of his generation.</p>

Woodgates perceived great game , David Villa took him to the cleaners twice , once should have resulted in a freekick to Spain maybeevena penalty, the 2nd he whipped the cross in from which they scored.</p>

Left-footed players on the left would help also.</p>

Whilst ever El Tel is invloved England will be stuck in the mid-90's and destined to go absolutely nowhere.</p>

 

yeah 96 was an awful year for English football.

 

1 good game against the worst Dutch team in 30 years

It was indeed fantastic to hang on for a draw against the Swiss , Lucky win against the Scots , completely outclassed by the Spanish and if the linesman had been on their game we would have lost 2 or 3 nil.</p>

Still 1 good game in 6 isnt a bad return.</p>

 

That's not how I remember Euro 96 myself. We started poorly granted. The draw against the swiss is about the standard of most England performances in recent years with a couple of exceptions. I'd sooner watch Euro 96 again, then the crap we just witnessed in a world cup with the best team we've had since the 60's.

 

We played well against Holland and that was it. Spain were the better side and we failed at home to beat the worst German side for generations.

 

Thing is, without Rooney and Joe Cole, there's no-one with any sort of creativity whatsoever. We have some very capable players, but once they're sussed, they're sussed.

 

The '90 team was better as we had Gazza in his prime.

Only weak spot in that team was Shilton.</p>

I also thought the France '98 team was decent if only for the fact that Owen was on his game.</p>

 

Didn't Spain have 2 "goals" ruled out for offside which the rplays showed the linesman got wrong?

 

To get the best out of Ronney we need some pace up front with him.

For me Crouch and Rooney will never work.</p>

I am not a fan of Joe Cole , but at least he looks like he is happy to have the ball during a game.</p>

Crouch is an off the bench player if we need to hit it long.</p>

 

ok I give up, You're right, we're a much better team to watch now obviously.

My point was, we're are absolutely ***** to watch now, and Euro 96 was actually a good tournament. And I think that England team would have torn todays to shreds. More passion then ability.

 

That was my point , to explode the myth that is El Tel.

He has been out of the game way too long, probaly still thinks 3-5-2 is a system that gets you places , when no team thats ever won anything has played it.</p>

 

No one has said we are better now ,

just that we weren't that good back then.</p>

The Tournament itself was generally rubbish , other than us beating the Dutch I dont think there was a good game in it.</p>

 

You said we'd end up going back to the mid 90's under el Tel, my point was I'd prefer that, as we were actually a better team then, with apparently less talent.

I enjoyed Euro 96, mainly for the atmosphere it created. People actually got well behind the team.

 

I agree with that and that we're pants now. Don't spit the dummy Gladys.