Xtratime Community banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am not English and maybe I can not fully appreciate the significance of the win over Germany. Since 1966? Sounds dramatic, but they played only five times or so and two of those they were not beaten during the game. SUCH A BIG DEAL.

I know the result was more importand than the performance, but I still can not understand the euphoria, because this was one of the worst English peformances that I have seen. England so far is the only team in the tournament that can not make more than three consecutive passes. This is ridiculous. I think Keagan was hurt very much by Robson, when he was left out from the team as a player. Now he supports older players like Shearer, Ince, and Seaman just not to hurt them. I can’t believe he is able to find those lame excuses for such a pathetic performance. I feel sorry for Owen, Scholes, Macca and others who will never have a chance to show what they could do with such an unimaginative, boring and unskillful tactic that England have been playing so far.

Wake up Keagan and use the talent that you have in the team. Otherwise you will completely ruin the reputation of English football which has been pretty shaky over the recent years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,672 Posts
very true. england beat one of the weakest teams in the tournament. and they didn't even impress.

so what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,990 Posts
Maybe you can't understand the significance of the victory over Germany. So I'll try and put it forward from an Englishman's point of view. I'm 24 years old, and until Saturday I'd not seen England beat Germany in my whole life! To have come so close in 1990 and 1996 and to have been knocked out of the tournament on penalties have taken their toll on the English publics minds. This win was extremely important from a physcological point of view. England have now gotten over the mental block they had when playing the Germans and can now go into the remaining game full of confidence.
Yes, the performance against Germany was not pretty to watch, but we out-fought, out-played (ater 30 minutes), and tactically beat Germany for the first time since 1966. I am not naive enough to believe it was a good performance, but neither am I going to write England off. We tend to start tournaments slowly and build up the performances as the games go on. Remember the game against Holland in 1996 was possibly the best England performance since that 1966 world cup final.

That is why it is so important for an Englishman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Well now when England is over a mental block against Germany, they have a new mental block against Romania. And this will go on and on until they actually start playing football.

Romania looked like a team from a much better league because the way England played. In fact every team looked better when they played England, even crapy Germany.

And I hoped Keagan was different.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Your'e right, the last "good" match Engladn played was teh 4-1 destruction of the Netherlands at Euro 96. England at that stage thought they had won it already, and have suffered repercussions ever since.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
England and Germany were the two worst teams in Euro 2000.
The fact that Germany controlled most of the game must be a real worry to England.
Unfortunately, a goalkeeping error gave England an undeserved victory, and the idiot press immediately decided that as they had beaten Germany, they could now win the tournament.
England lost out in the qualifying group to Sweden. This is the same team that was prevented from going to France '98 by Scotland and Austria.
They then struggled in the play offs against a second rate Scotland team who ran all over them at Wembley.
Why did everyone suddenly think that they would magically become a good team when they arrived at Euro 2000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
Everybody expected England to do well because:
1. It happened many times before when a team nobody expected to be a force went as far as to win the tournament.
2. KK had some very good players available to him. Look how comfortably Real cruised to victory in CL with McManaman at the heart of their team. Apart from R.Carlos and Redondo, players at least as good as Real's were available to England. But for some mysterious reason Macca is considered "inconsistent" in his home country. Play Shearer as a wingback or Seaman as a striker and I'll see how consistent they will be. And anyway who do you guys think is "more consistent" than macca? Ince, Wise, Barmby, Wilcox, Batty? Can somebody honestly say that those players do not have ups or downs, that they always are on top of their form? One thing is for sure that 5 of them combined do not possess half of the skills Macca has. And along with Scholes, Beckham, Dyer and Gerrard he would have formed very formidable midfield behind Fowler and Owen. They would at the very least play entertaining soccer. What we got instead?
Imagine other teams doing the same, I mean not playing Zidane, Figo, Rui Costa, Davids, Bergkamp? No, they always play and people love to see them play. Why England always find an excuse to drop Gazza(in '98) or Macca('98,'00) remains a mystery to me. I would be very interested to hear some comments on that, but please, don't use the word "inconsistent", I heard enough of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,990 Posts
As a Liverpool fan as well as an England fan, I would like to hear the same as you. What reason do you leave McManaman out and bring in Wise?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
After Wise showed how "great" he is against Portugal and Germany I thought KK would let him stay in the hotel and watch the Romania game on TV...but then he realised that other players might be inconsistent, and at least from Wise you always know what to expect.
But if seriously, I think Seedorf is 1000 times better than Wise, and he was dropped after a sloppy opening game, simply because business is business. But KK meant no business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,990 Posts
Zico, I take it you are saying that by remaining loyal to the under peformers was one of KK's main errors?
I'd agree, but his team selection was not his only fault, I believe that even with those players a team playing under Venables would have peformed far greater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
No doubts about that. KK is a nice fella, I always liked him ever since his days as a player, but he's no match to Venables, he makes Hoddle look Rinus Michels.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Terry Venables has disclosed that he is prepared to return as England manager if Kevin Keegan steps down during the qualifying campaign for the 2002 World Cup.

A lot of people keep telling me that I should re-open the door to an approach if Kevin walks away," Venables said. "They say a lot of people would want me back, especially the professionals in the game, so maybe it would be an idea to poll the country for its opinion.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top