Euros | Page 32 | Vital Football

Euros

England have never produced a good side in my lifetime.

In '90, they were determined.

In '96, they played well.

In the '00s they had good players.

In '18, they got lucky with the draw after Southgate threw the group match against the Belgians.

But. They have NEVER been a good side.
 
Let's be clear. I didn't say England were bang average in that tournament

I said it was a bang average side- as shown by failing to qualify 2 years earlier, struggling to qualify 2 years later and being knocked out in the first knockout round.

That being said, I mean that they were a bang average side in international terms. In English terms they were one of the best the country has had
The failure to qualify two years earlier did have a little bit to do with the Dutch. And a manager who was out of his depth.

In 98 we lost on penalties to Argentina after losing Beckham for kicking Simeone. Argentina were fancied to win that tournament so arguing that they were average on the basis of an early exit is slightly unfair. (That Argentina team boasted Ayala, Zanetti, Simeone, Vivas, Veron, Ortega and a certain Batistuta)

On that basis you could even argue that in that 2 year period (96-98) that England team stood toe to toe with 4 top line teams and only lost on penalties.

For me they were good English sides. They had steel, they had pace, they had craft and they could score goals. Yes they lost when it mattered but only on penalties and only after performances that had you on the edge of your seats in excitement rather than mulling whether or not to even bother watching.
 
The failure to qualify two years earlier did have a little bit to do with the Dutch. And a manager who was out of his depth.

In 98 we lost on penalties to Argentina after losing Beckham for kicking Simeone. Argentina were fancied to win that tournament so arguing that they were average on the basis of an early exit is slightly unfair. (That Argentina team boasted Ayala, Zanetti, Simeone, Vivas, Veron, Ortega and a certain Batistuta)

On that basis you could even argue that in that 2 year period (96-98) that England team stood toe to toe with 4 top line teams and only lost on penalties.

For me they were good English sides. They had steel, they had pace, they had craft and they could score goals. Yes they lost when it mattered but only on penalties and only after performances that had you on the edge of your seats in excitement rather than mulling whether or not to even bother watching.
All fair points; those England sides did exceptionally well.

I notice you are talking about how well they did in relation to how utterly incredible the team's they lost to were. You aren't expressing disappointment that England underachieved by failing to beat those teams.

You talk about "the likes of" Batistuta, Zanetti, etc. They were better players than anyone England had; possibly Beckham was the only one on that level, but he only played in 98 I believe.

2006 was the one England had a chance in; Beckham, Rooney, Campbell, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Cole, Scholes, perhaps Lampard and Hargreaves were all top class players.

But Scholes just couldn't perform for England and hated being away from his family for those tournaments.

No manager solved the Lampard/Gerrard issue without creating others.

Owen was a shadow of what he had been.

There was no top class goalkeeper.

That England side were better, IMO, than the Portugal side they lost to.

I don't think they were better than France or the winners Italy, but I do think that in a final, with momentum behind them and luck on the day, they could have matched them and potentially won.

But fans never got to see an England at that level because they went out too early in the tournament
 
Obviously making the semi finals of a tournament, some would argue is more difficult to win than the World Cup, is generally seen to be an indication of a sides quality.

In spite of football constantly evolving, it seems somewhat contrary that some might argue making the semi finals of Euro 96 is nothing to write home about, given the German side 25 years later would beat them.

Odd
 
Obviously making the semi finals of a tournament, some would argue is more difficult to win than the World Cup, is generally seen to be an indication of a sides quality.

In spite of football constantly evolving, it seems somewhat contrary that some might argue making the semi finals of Euro 96 is nothing to write home about, given the German side 25 years later would beat them.

Odd
Wales made the semis of the last Euros. They had David Vaughan and Jonny Williams in the squad, as well as noted world beaters such as Simon Church and Hal-Robson Kanu

Greece won the thing in 2004 and they were not even close to being the best squad of players.
 
All fair points; those England sides did exceptionally well.

I notice you are talking about how well they did in relation to how utterly incredible the team's they lost to were. You aren't expressing disappointment that England underachieved by failing to beat those teams.

You talk about "the likes of" Batistuta, Zanetti, etc. They were better players than anyone England had; possibly Beckham was the only one on that level, but he only played in 98 I believe.

2006 was the one England had a chance in; Beckham, Rooney, Campbell, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Cole, Scholes, perhaps Lampard and Hargreaves were all top class players.

But Scholes just couldn't perform for England and hated being away from his family for those tournaments.

No manager solved the Lampard/Gerrard issue without creating others.

Owen was a shadow of what he had been.

There was no top class goalkeeper.

That England side were better, IMO, than the Portugal side they lost to.

I don't think they were better than France or the winners Italy, but I do think that in a final, with momentum behind them and luck on the day, they could have matched them and potentially won.

But fans never got to see an England at that level because they went out too early in the tournament
The thing was that in both of those tournaments we expected to go toe to toe with those teams. We knew the teams we were facing were good but we thought we could take them.

For me 96 and 98 was the last time we had a good team. 2006 we had good, possibly great players but we could never make them into a team.

But then for Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes you had Ince, Platt and Gascoigne. We had Shearer, Ferdinand and Sheringham; Adams, Pearce and Southgate at the back. If they weren’t great, they were very, very good…
 
England's best chance of winning the World Cup was in 2002.

On paper they were better than anyone except for Brazil (poor tournament illustrated by Turkey and South Korea reaching the Semis) and given the way that events unfolded in that quarter final (?) they should have won that game and gone on to win the tournament.

However, you just know they would have managed to lose to arguably the worst German side of all time in the final on penalties.
 
The thing was that in both of those tournaments we expected to go toe to toe with those teams. We knew the teams we were facing were good but we thought we could take them.

For me 96 and 98 was the last time we had a good team. 2006 we had good, possibly great players but we could never make them into a team.

But then for Lampard, Gerrard and Scholes you had Ince, Platt and Gascoigne. We had Shearer, Ferdinand and Sheringham; Adams, Pearce and Southgate at the back. If they weren’t great, they were very, very good…

Ok.

But Shearer- had played only for Blackburn and Southampton at that point, winning one trophy and being utterly embarrassed in Europe.

Southgate played for Villa

Pearce played for a Forest side that was about to get relegated.

Adams played for a mid table Arsenal side

Gazza was only playing for Rangers

Ferdinand had played for QPR and Newcastle I think? He was actually the best performer over the PL season.

Ince was the only one of the big England players at a top team really, being at Inter.

The best players in the PL; Cantona, Ginola, Bergkamp- were not in that England side.

The point being that we have fond memories, but most of those players were not at top clubs and were never considered good enough to be signed by them
 
Ok.

But Shearer- had played only for Blackburn and Southampton at that point, winning one trophy and being utterly embarrassed in Europe.

Southgate played for Villa

Pearce played for a Forest side that was about to get relegated.

Adams played for a mid table Arsenal side

Gazza was only playing for Rangers

Ferdinand had played for QPR and Newcastle I think? He was actually the best performer over the PL season.

Ince was the only one of the big England players at a top team really, being at Inter.

The best players in the PL; Cantona, Ginola, Bergkamp- were not in that England side.

The point being that we have fond memories, but most of those players were not at top clubs and were never considered good enough to be signed by them
Shearer was signed by Newcastle and wanted by Man Utd. His goal scoring record speaks for itself. Southgate nearly went to Man Utd but changed his mind and Pearce was also wanted by Utd.

Ince, Platt and Gascoigne had all played in Europe and although Gascoigne had lost a yard he was still one of the best in Europe. It wasn’t his talent that was in question.

There was also Mcmanaman who went to Real and for a time was preferred to Figo, certainly by the fans…

Adams won 4 league titles, the cup winners cup, 3 FA cups and 2 league cups.

In the 90s Villa and Newcastle were strong teams and although Forest had been on the wane, Pearce was still classed as one of the best left backs in Europe.

As I say, it may not have been great but it was very, very good and the fact that we were going into games against top sides of the day thinking we could win would bear that out. I can’t remember the last time I felt that way about an England side.
 
England's best chance of winning the World Cup was in 2002.

On paper they were better than anyone except for Brazil (poor tournament illustrated by Turkey and South Korea reaching the Semis) and given the way that events unfolded in that quarter final (?) they should have won that game and gone on to win the tournament.

However, you just know they would have managed to lose to arguably the worst German side of all time in the final on penalties.

At the time it was considered a tournament too early for Eriksson but you’re absolutely right.
We had the measure of both a very good Turkey side and Germany. Beating them both befote the event.
I’ve said for while looking back if we could have just got past Brazil we would of won it.
I think England had been a good side for a while, would have been interesting to see what Hoddle could have done had he not gone nuts 98 onwards.
 
Ok.

But Shearer- had played only for Blackburn and Southampton at that point, winning one trophy and being utterly embarrassed in Europe.

Southgate played for Villa

Pearce played for a Forest side that was about to get relegated.

Adams played for a mid table Arsenal side

Gazza was only playing for Rangers

Ferdinand had played for QPR and Newcastle I think? He was actually the best performer over the PL season.

Ince was the only one of the big England players at a top team really, being at Inter.

The best players in the PL; Cantona, Ginola, Bergkamp- were not in that England side.

The point being that we have fond memories, but most of those players were not at top clubs and were never considered good enough to be signed by them

Blackburn were the Man City of the time and Shearer had turned down Man U previously and would go on to turn them down later.

Pearce would have played for a big club if he wanted to. Pretty sure he turned down Man U at some point.

Adams was a key member of Arsenal's title winning side in 91 and played a role in their Invincibles side later.

He didn't just become shit in the middle of that period.

Gazza would have been one of the best players in the world if he could have stayed fit.
 
At the time it was considered a tournament too early for Eriksson but you’re absolutely right.
We had the measure of both a very good Turkey side and Germany. Beating them both befote the event.
I’ve said for while looking back if we could have just got past Brazil we would of won it.
I think England had been a good side for a while, would have been interesting to see what Hoddle could have done had he not gone nuts 98 onwards.

Hoddle was a very good coach.

I would go as far as saying that he had the makings of being the best coach England had in my life time, which would have meant being better than Robson.

He was definitely better than Venables and this muppet we've got now and anyone else we had previously.

By the way, I'm not saying Capello or Eriksson were shit, they just didn't seem to be a very good fit.

Southgate is a good fit, but he's shit.
 
Blackburn were the Man City of the time and Shearer had turned down Man U previously and would go on to turn them down later.

Pearce would have played for a big club if he wanted to. Pretty sure he turned down Man U at some point.

Adams was a key member of Arsenal's title winning side in 91 and played a role in their Invincibles side later.

He didn't just become shit in the middle of that period.

Gazza would have been one of the best players in the world if he could have stayed fit.
Blackburn were not the Man City of the time. Blackburn were a simple and effective, "traditional" English side based around great wingers and strikers. They were an embarrassment in Europe, as were most English sides.

It would be another three years before even one English side was capable of winning the Champions League; and even that was a smash and grab (as was the next time) in the final.

Man City now are able to reach the quarters, the semis and the finals of the CL most years. Not losing to Trelleborg or Legia Warsaw

This is a disease of the English; fans vastly overrate how good their players are, making huge sweeping statements about how certain players are amongst the best in the world without any actual comparative evidence.

Champions League winners, ever, in that 96 squad? How many continental medals?

I think you have a young McManaman, and that's it
 
Blackburn were not the Man City of the time. Blackburn were a simple and effective, "traditional" English side based around great wingers and strikers. They were an embarrassment in Europe, as were most English sides.

It would be another three years before even one English side was capable of winning the Champions League; and even that was a smash and grab (as was the next time) in the final.

Man City now are able to reach the quarters, the semis and the finals of the CL most years. Not losing to Trelleborg or Legia Warsaw

Domestically, Blackburn were the Man City of the time to the extent that they were a shit, nothing club that bought the title.

The tactics that the employed to do this or whether or not they lost to a team of Scandinavian brickies in the Champions League did not come in to my consideration.

They were able to compete for the best available players like Shearer or Bohinen and they were often able to sign them despite being a nothing club with no history post-1888 or no future beyond this period, simply because they were paying higher wages.
 
Blackburn were not the Man City of the time. Blackburn were a simple and effective, "traditional" English side based around great wingers and strikers. They were an embarrassment in Europe, as were most English sides.

It would be another three years before even one English side was capable of winning the Champions League; and even that was a smash and grab (as was the next time) in the final.

Man City now are able to reach the quarters, the semis and the finals of the CL most years. Not losing to Trelleborg or Legia Warsaw

This is a disease of the English; fans vastly overrate how good their players are, making huge sweeping statements about how certain players are amongst the best in the world without any actual comparative evidence.

Champions League winners, ever, in that 96 squad? How many continental medals?

I think you have a young McManaman, and that's it
How many winners could we have had? The five year ban hit us hard. Before that ban, English clubs did well and it only took us til 99 to start getting on track with mainly English players in that Utd side. Even an average Forest side got deep into the UEFA cup…

And this isn’t us talking up current players, this is us looking back at a team and making comparison.

Because of the ban you have to look at the squads of the opposition we faced. The Spanish were mostly Real players, the Germans mostly from Bayern. The Dutch were scattered throughout the top clubs in England, Italy and Spain with the Argentinians being scattered around top Italian and Spanish sides.

If it were just one game you could argue it as a fluke but it was 4 games in two tournaments that we matched some of the best teams and players going. That would suggest that we had to be a certain level at the very least.
 
Last edited:
How many winners could we have had? The five year ban hit us hard. Before that ban, English clubs did well and it only took us til 99 to start getting on track with mainly English players in that Utd side.

And this isn’t us talking up current players, this is us looking back at a team and making comparison.

Because of the ban you have to look at the squads of the opposition we faced. The Spanish were mostly Real players, the Germans mostly from Bayern. The Dutch were scattered throughout the top clubs in England, Italy and Spain with the Argentinians being scattered around top Italian and Spanish sides.

If it were just one game you could argue it as a fluke but it was 4 games in two tournaments that we matched some of the best teams and players going. That would suggest that we had to be a certain level at the very least.
But Basha- you can't mitigate the lack of winners by telling me that England's circumstances hamstrung their players from achieving that level, and at the same time claim they were at that level and comparable with both other national teams of the time (and now).

The reality is, the PL was about 10 years away from being regarded as the strongest league in Europe. Hardly any English players were wanted by the top leagues of the time. One player in that England squad, to my recollection, played outside of the British Isles with possibly two more having done so. I can only think of one of those players who would go on to do so in 96, although you can add a couple more to that list for 98.

If you accept that the best players in the world tended to play for Real, Barcelona, Juventus, Milan, Bayern etc then you must accept that that 96 England squad was not made up of the best players in the world. Hardly any of the played for the best (by far) team in england
 
Because of the incredibly insular nature of the British Isles and natural, inherent hatred for anything foreign, it was well known that British players a) didn't fancy playing abroad b) didn't settle well if they did go abroad, so there simply wasn't any demand on either side for British players playing abroad.
 
Because of the incredibly insular nature of the British Isles and natural, inherent hatred for anything foreign, it was well known that British players a) didn't fancy playing abroad b) didn't settle well if they did go abroad, so there simply wasn't any demand on either side for British players playing abroad.

I don't know about the former, and the latter is also questionable. Gazza played abroad for a while. Platt fully embraced the Italian lifestyle. Both Keegan and Woodgate had done the same eveb earlier

The idea seems to come from Ian Rush, and his infamous "it was like being in a foreign country".

I think the lack is probably more explained by the (not incorrect) foreign perception of English players being spectacularly limited either technically or tactically or both
 
But Basha- you can't mitigate the lack of winners by telling me that England's circumstances hamstrung their players from achieving that level, and at the same time claim they were at that level and comparable with both other national teams of the time (and now).

The reality is, the PL was about 10 years away from being regarded as the strongest league in Europe. Hardly any English players were wanted by the top leagues of the time. One player in that England squad, to my recollection, played outside of the British Isles with possibly two more having done so. I can only think of one of those players who would go on to do so in 96, although you can add a couple more to that list for 98.

If you accept that the best players in the world tended to play for Real, Barcelona, Juventus, Milan, Bayern etc then you must accept that that 96 England squad was not made up of the best players in the world. Hardly any of the played for the best (by far) team in england
That’s not what I am saying at all.

English players have never travelled well so tend to stick to playing for English clubs. This meant that when English clubs were banned from Europe you saw pretty much zero involvement from English players. That is nothing to do with whether the players are good enough. There was plenty of interest reported at the time but

Similarly because of the ban, few too foreign players were over here but that changed rapidly once we were allowed back in.

You are also falling into the trap of thinking that clubs were the same then as they are now when they weren’t. As well as Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool you had Newcastle, Villa, Blackburn and even Forest for short periods.

There were 4 players in that England squad in 96 that played abroad either before or after. There are 3 in the current squad. Does that mean they aren’t playing for top sides?

And in comparison I give you Pickford, White, Mings, Rice, Calvert-Lewin, Grealish, Phillips who all play for mid-table or lower English sides. Does that make them any less talented? Or does it just mean the league has more strength in depth?