Some interesting points from all. In truth i believe that all the main reasons for Englands failure have been touched upon, however i will say that certain views are given with a bias 1 way or other which really somes football up in general that for the most part its really a matter of oppinion. I will attempt to address a few points as best i can.

Firstly the point made of too many foreigners in the premiership is actually wearing thin. The league in its current form has only been around for 16 years with an influx of foreign talent over the last 10 or so years. If that argument stands true then what are the reasons for englands lack of success prior to the inception of the premier league.

Secondly, im not trying to defend England here but their defeats in major tournaments have usually come at the hands of eventual finalists and winners of these tournaments. Furthermore defeats usually take place with the aid of penalties suggesting that england in most cases have usually matched their opponents during normal play.

Greece are the current European champions - this would suggest that having the best players or perceived best players is not a guarantee of success. Much rather that the performance of the collective is what defines rather than any individual display which may in itself be eye catching. A point that would suggest strong leadership qualities on and off the field have a very significant part to play in outcomes. Now consider that greece subsequently failed to qualify for the 2006 world cup yet managed to qualify for Euro 2008 with apparent ease.

Can i offer any remedies? A difficult task indeed. Here are some to discuss. The stupid friendlies that they play before the tournament starts. Oh lets play this team because their style is similar to 1 of the group opponents. Generally that means lets get in some whipping boys to give us a false confidence boost when we beat them without breaking sweat. Get in some tough opponents that will test the nerve and resolve of the players. If were that worried about injuries then dont play the games in the first place.

Change the mentality of wanting to avoid this team and that team till this stage and that stage. To be the best expect to beat the rest. Its plain and simple. Ive often felt the whole seeding system is unfair anyway. Names should be put in a draw and thats that. Progressing means you have earnt it rather than you have had a favourable passage. Apart from anything esle how many times have we seen the perceived strongest teams in the final stages serving up rubbish and passing it off as a tight contest of football where the stakes are high and nobody wants to lose?

Finally, It would seem to me that the ability to change things when the chips are down is how the most successful teams go about their business. This is something that previous england teams have struggled to do whilst preferring to run haed long into the waiting and willing brick walls. Possibly because previous managers have been loathed to drop or substitute their under performing superstars.

It would seem that Fabio Cappello is set fair to alter a thing or two so only time will tell my friends only time will tell. As end note it would be wise to remember that as England undergo changes and improvements we must assume that any serious contender will not be resting on their laurels so therefore expectations must be measured against realism. Firstly and foremost i want to see a more entertaining england. Can i live without them winning yes of course - just as long as they put up a damn good show trying to acheive.

I think you missed my point. If you read back, I said I agree in that game England bottled it. Far from looking for excuses, I believe Brazil deserved the win. However, I will never accept Ronaldinho actually went for goal. As far as I'm concerned, he meant to cross, got it wrong and it went in. Lucky goal.
If you really believe England's goal was lucky because of an error from Lucio, then surely by the same token, even if Ronaldinho had actually meant his cross to be a shot, Seaman's error makes that goal lucky also. The truth is, Lucio messed up and Owen, being a player of quality, finished superbly.




You see, this is why your argument is invalid. Apart from being incorrect - I also cited 2 championship games against Argentina - you are now moving the goal posts to suit.



I give you a few examples but now you change your criteria from important games, which I'm sure most would consider a qualifier away to Germany as important, to championship games. The truth is, England winning 5-1, in a qualifier, in Germany, to a team that you rightly point out nearly won the competition, wouldn't fit into your theory.
You elude to Germany being of quality for reaching the final, although not when England played them in a qualifier but let's be really childish for a moment and analyse their competition, in comparison to England's.

First off, both teams lost to the eventual winners, which is no embarrassment, England 2-1, Germany 2-0. England led their game so in simple logic, could mean England did better against Brazil than Germany. Pathetic but true.

Semi-finals:
England out, Germany beat USA 1-0. You can only beat what's in front of you but hardly a jaw dropping result.

Quarters:
England lose to eventual winners, Germany beat South Korea. Hmmm.

Second Round:
England beat Denmark 3-0, Germany beat Paraguay 1-0. Open to debate but I would suggest the England result was more impressive.

Group Stages:
England, Sweden, Argentina and Nigeria.
Germany, Republic of Ireland, Cameroon and Saudi Arabia

England beat and ultimately knock out the pre-tournament favourites Argentina to qualify. Germany didn't need to do too much.

France choke and go out at the group stage. Portugal choke and go out at the group stage. Italy choke in the second round and go out to South Korea. Spain choke in the quarters and also go out to South Korea.

So in this competiton, would I suggest France, Portugal, Spain and Italy didn't have enough quality players? Absolutely not!
Do I believe Germany are the 2nd best team in the world? Definately not!
What the Germans did have, other than a little piece of "luck of the draw" is their impeccable organisation, focus and discipline.




Again you miss my point. I think Kaka is one of the best players in the world and I wouldn't be so stupid as to call him regular. I am emphasising how you can pull out a performance here and there to make the same argument you are making.

That Juventus team that collectively choked, more than I've ever seen a team choke before:

Buffon (Italian)
Zebina (French - Sent Off)
Thuram (French World Cup Winner)
Cannavaro (Italian)
Zambrotta (Italian)
Camoranesi (Italian - Sent Off)
Vieira (French World Cup Winner)
Emerson (Brazillian World Cup Winner)
Mutu (Romanian)
Chiellini (Italian)
Ibrahimovic (Swedish)
Trezeguet (French World Cup Winner)
Zalayeta (Italian)

Nedved was sent off in the 2nd leg, the 2nd time Juventus choked. I am happy to read you think Nedved is regular also - it really strengthens your argument.





There you go changing the debate to suit your argument again. What difference does it make that he was wearing a Liverpool shirt? You argue England have no quality players, that they choke. This was one example of how an English player showed exceptional character. But yes, to give one example in an England shirt, that 5-1 win in Germany. The one you dismiss as unimportant.

A valid point strass but one that would cut no ice with Gonzaga.

Scottish like to be called scots? Correct?

This is getting more and more interesting. Good to meet someone that can argument strongly and without having to insult others. Congrats. Now let me try rip you to pieces

I never denied that Ronaldinho's goal was lucky. My point is that both goals were lucky, but Brazil played offensive the whole game and we looked for the win, while England was gifted a goal in the beginning and watched we playing the rest of the game, even when we got the lead. The goal was lucky, but our victory was well deserved


You cited 2 championship games. In 98 England choked and lost to Argentina. In 2002 you didnt choke and beat them (in group stage), but later did choke and lost to us. About Beckhams goals im sorry but I cant talk about that cause I didnt follow England in that time. I didnt watch England's qualifiers games to France 98, but it doesnt make any difference cause even if you guys played great you choked in the World Cup itself.



That 5-1 victory against Germany was impressive for sure, and the game had its importance due all the rivalry between the nations, but it wasnt an important game. At least wasnt as important as a World Cup game. Lets be honest, nobody expected that England or Germany would miss that World Cup, even though they were draw in the same group. That match wasnt that important, cause in the end England and Germany would qualify. And the path you quoted there matches my point. I've been trying to say that England doesnt win World Cups cause they do play well and 'show their class' in games with a second importance, games that you can lose and still comeback later in the competition. But when you cant lose the game, when its win or say goodbye, you guys choke and lose, what doesnt happen (in most cases) with the nations I said. Did France choke and lose in Japan/Korea 2002? Yes. But 4 years before they didnt and won the World Cup. Did Italy choke and lose in Japan/Korea 2002? Yes. But 4 years later they didnt and won the World Cup. Did we choke in Germany 2006? Yes. But 4 years before we didnt and won the World Cup. Everybody chokes sometimes, but the difference between England and these nations is that England always choke, while the other nations manage to stay firm and win trophies, not isolated games, here and there.



I wont talk about Portugal and Spain cause, exactly as England, they always choke in decisions. About Italy and France in 2002, they did had better teams than Germany and Brazil, but having the better team isnt enough and football proves it quite often. Brazil and Germany were inferior, but didnt choke and managed to reach the final, unlike all the other nations. If Germany won that final it wouldnt be undeserved, just like we deserved the trophy.



Some mistakes up there. Chiellini wasnt in Juventus in that time; Emerson never won a World Cup; Zalayeta isnt italian. And Trezeguet, even though he was in french squad in 98, didnt played much and wasnt a main piece in the team. And in 2006, he also didnt play much, only a few minutes. Oh and missed the penalty that gave Italy the title. That Juventus team did choke, but what it has to do with the discussion after all? I said that Italy is a team that doesnt choke often, not club teams from Italy. Club teams are another discussion cause of the foreign influence they have. Even though, the italian and french players of that Juventus team werent the responsables of that elimination. I am a Juventus fan and am telling you, I dont blame Buffon, nor Cannavaro, nor Zambrotta, nor Vieira for that defeat. The players who were supposed to decide the tie, the protagonists, were Ibrahimovic and Nedved.

And I dont think Nedved is regular. I am a huge fan of him and one of my favourite players, due his class and loyalty to our team. Although, I've already learned we can't rely on him in decisive games. He's a czech version of Gerrard (I know Gerrard has proved his worth in decisive games for Liverpool, but ill talk about this later). He never did what people expected from him in the czech national squad, and that class them as chokers just like England, Spain and Portugal. For Juve its quite the same. He has loads of great performances with Juve shirt, but none in decisive games.



Makes all the difference. What are we discussing here? That England chokes and cause of it they doesnt win World Cups or that Liverpool chokes and cause of it doesnt win Champions Leagues or whatever? As I said in the other paragraph, club teams and national teams arent the same, due the foreign influence in the club teams. Gerrard does his job for Liverpool, but not for England.

Well it appears that the only way you will change your mind is if England win every tournament they enter. Although I am happy we have got to the stage where you claim Spain and Portugal have regular players also.

BTW - Chiellini came on for Mutu in that Juventus game. Zalayeta was a copy and paste error I forgot to correct but I totally forgot Emerson pulled out of the 2002 World Cup.

Gonzaga man, thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I will never accept that England have no quality players and you will just keep changing your argument to suit. C'est La Vie.

OK lets finish this then with the final considerations.

First, I will change my mind when English players show me they can play the finals/decisive matches same way they do in first stages. Winning a World Cup or Euro would be more than enough.

Second, you're getting the expression 'regular players' too harsh. Most of the players in the world are regular or below regular. The so called 'world class' are, imo, a reduced group of players that can decide an important game with his geniality, scoring a goal or keeping his defense secure. This is another problem of british media, they class regular players as world class too soon, before the guy prove himself under the pressure of a epical game. Be classed as a regular player isnt as depreciative as you think.

Finally, you might think I've changed arguments to suit, but thats not true. I might have expressed myself badly cause this is not my mothertongue and my language is very different from english, an example is the use you guys do of the word 'regular'. Here, for a player be classed as world class or 'above regular' he has to be really good, so, in the other hand, be classed as regular isnt that bad. Some points I wanted to express might have sounded contraditory, but thats due the language difficulties and lazyness of work harder, not cause im a contraditory person

In any walk of life, regular means average. In England we have many average players, as does every footballing nation. The debate here was over your argument that English players at the top of their profession are no more than that - average. I argue that the top English players are of high quality but have, until now, lacked the leadership qualities that will make them cohesive, disciplined and focused.

I think the 2 best contrasting examples I can give to support that, are Holland and Greece. Holland have always fallen short, not because they didn't have quality but because they had no discipline, no focus. During a tournament, the whole world is waiting to hear about the latest fall out in the Dutch camp. Greece, on the other hand, not with the most gifted squad, win a championship because they had that quality of leadership. I have always believed a team of good, well organised players, will most of the time beat a team of superstars that have no direction.

In the game against Brazil, that cohesion, discipline and focus was clearly not there and as a result, no self belief that they could win the game. Ericsson wasn't in a position to instill those qualities, as it was evident he was just a patsy for the senior players.

I believe now we have that quality management in place and England will progress. Time will tell.

I realise English isn't your native tongue but I think your command of the language is much better than regular. I would be very happy if I could speak to you half as well in your language, as you do in mine.

That phrase explains why we have been discussing. In my vision, quality/world class/above average players are those who have the football skills and can put them in action during vital matches, important matches, high-pressure matches. They dont need someone to lead them, dont need help to get focused and do their stuff in these kind of games; they just enter the pitch and decide the game in their favour, just play and win, no choke. England doesnt have any player like this in their squad today and didnt had for a long time - reason why they cant win major tournaments.

Mr Gonzaga, i must beg to differ from the view of not needing someone to lead a team from off the field. England have a squad of players that are certainly capable of winning tournaments. How highly we rate players is usually down to nothing more than personal view as opposed to any real substance. For example michael owen is on his way to becoming englands greatest goal scorer, but will he be classed as englands greatest forward? I doubt it very much. All treams need strong leadership from the touchline as well as on the field. Many teams around the globe have quality players but lack leadership on the managerial side and even from their FAs. In particular African teams who would fair much better if not having to go into tournaments constantly haggling over financial arrangements with their associations.

Roy Keane of Republic of Ireland fell out because he felt that the preparation was totally inadequate for a team of international standing and claimed that facilties orgaanised by his then team Manchester United were far better. So i say again leadership off the feild is equally as important as leadership on it.

Correct Bluenose. Since knowone answered your question i thought i would.

Thank you G_Man

What an interesting debate.Great points raised here and most explained excellently.As it is 3:50am I will be short and frank.Maybe tomorrow I will be more in depth.

Can we read much into the fact that England always fail at penalty shoot-outs?The last one I remember us winning was against Spain in Euro 96.People say that penalties are an unfair way to decide matches.I don't believe this for a second.It shows us who has bottle.Who has nerves of steel and who can handle pressure.These are qualities you need in regular football as much as talent and hard work respectively.I don't think when players play for England they assume they will win.I think they care too much about how the media will rip them to shreds when they lose and this creates doubts in their minds.

This is different at club level.They have more self-belief there and can take games by the scruff of the neck.Like Gerrard has.Like Rooney has.Like most England first-teamers have for their teams.Like most Spanish players have at teams like Real Madrid and Barcelona.They are completely different players at international level and look like a bag of nerves.

Can we read much into the fact that England always fail at penalty shoot-outs?The last one I remember us winning was against Spain in Euro 96.


Game after did you not lose on penaltys?

Because they never have 11 players who can play the system we try to implement to a degree where they can dominate teams.

When it gets to the big teams we are good at stopping them playing but rarely good at playing as a team ourselves. This inevitably leads to pens and the rest writes itself.

Practice penalties

Praticing penalties helps to the degree that you can be sure of your technique and exactly where you are going to strike it. However, it does not allow for the emotions that are coursing through the veins when you are taking a kick that really matters. Pure and simple it boils down to the individual metal and resolve of the player taking the spot kick at any given time. Practicing them is a must, however, it is by no means a guarantee of increased success as there are a number of variables that can heavily influence the outcome.

To lose that much on penalities? These players play top level football infront of big crowds every week. Please no excuses for them

I for one would not make excuses for any of them. However the pressure of taking a penalty is different for different people in different circumstances. In some cases penalties were pure and simple taken poorly, in others it was creditable saves by the keeper and in some cases both. Frank Lampard showed character to step up and take Chelsea's against Liverpool given his recent bereavement as did stuart pearce after missing 1 for england in a world cup. It is undeniable that variables affect players regardless of practice. Sometimes they overcome them and sometimes they dont. Thats why penalties are referred to as a lottery with no amount of practice guaranteeing you to score.

Forget the quality of the players. It's not nearly as important as everyone thinks.
What really counts is discipline, team play and above all adaptability. Combine those three values and you can win any tournament with average players. Drop one, and you totally rely on individual skills.

How can Zenit destroy Bayern 4-0 when it's about individual qualities? I'll tell you how. Bayern showed no team play, no passion (has already been discussed) and no adaptability. They use the same formation in every important game, no matter if they face a counter team like Zenit or an offensive team like Werder Bremen, while they don't have proper players for this formation.

How did Greece win the European Championship in 2004?
Of course they played very disciplined, but what really won them the games was their formation. Otto Rehagel took over the national team and noticed that they don't have the players to play modern football so he completely changed the system and made use of a sweeper. A sweeper! He was being laughed at for using such an oldfashioned formation and they didn't sop laughing until they defeated Portugal in the opening game and eventually won the final.

Same thing for the Rangers now. The coach knows that he can't let the team play offensive because they don't have the potential. Consequently he adapts a catenaccio-like formation. The success proves him right.

This is why Germany performs so well at the tournaments. They play disciplined, they have the absolute will to win those tournaments and they (not always) have the adaptability.
One example: for the last WC, Klinsmann nominated David Odonkor for the German squad. He has never played for the national team before and he was mostly unknown, but he's one of the fastest professional football players in the world, which made him a great gain for the team, enabling totally new strategies.

I think the adaptability is the biggest problem of the English team. It's only the big names playing, even if they don't fit into the concept. What you really need is a coach who has the balls to make unpopular decisions and give other players a chance. That surely would take balls of steel with your sensational press. Discipline and team play come along with good training. And if a player breaks ranks, throw him out and give a young talent a chance.