I'm a Rangers fan (as well as Arsenal), and agree with the fact that Scotland missed Brown & Armstrong over these 2 games. Armstrong must be the most improved player in Scottish football the past year or so. Even so, i found Strachan's team selection strange. I'm not sure what Matt Phillips actually offers, or Barry Bannan for that matter either, that the likes of Callum Mcgregor doesn't.
There's a number of reasons why we aren't good enough. Of course we don't have a big pool of talent to choose from, but that hasn't stopped the likes of Iceland, Wales & Norn Ireland. So we must try & get more from our limited pool of players. Then there's youth coaching, facilities, actual coaching of the first team etc.
I actually don't think Rangers plight has helped matters. Taking 1 of the big clubs out the equation player wise, the ill feeling it's all caused etc, it's just all been a bit of a shambles really.
Going forward, i think we have some potentially decent players. The likes of McGinn, Mcgregor, McLean, Shinnie, Walker, Burke, Lewis Morgan should all be pushing to try & make the step up now, both domestically & internationally. However, another problem we have is that in some area's we have some depth (left back for instance we have Tierney, Robertson, Wallace), but no-one really coming through at right back or central defence. As we've seen the past 2 games, Tierney is having to play right back, when he's 1 of the best up & coming left backs around.
I can't get my head around Philips either. As you say, we don't have an abundance of talent, but we have better players who weren't used and that's a mistake. Philips should have never started and definitely should have been hooked at half time.
We were getting better as the games went on, we left too much to do and as always fell short.
How many match winners do we have in this squad? Kane? Can't think of anyone else plus the fact that he never looks great in an England shirt, but that's probably due to what's behind him to be fair.
I can't believe i'm saying this, but i agree with Chris Sutton on Strachan's stance on Griffiths, it's been obvious for a couple of years now he was our best option up front, yet he was too stubborn at the start of the campaign & that's 1 of the reasons that's cost us.
If England could take penalties, the last 30 years would look entirely different. To an extent, that really is the difference between our perception of England being hopeless for years and the reality. It could easily have been a minimum of one World Cup final, one semi-final, one Euro final and two semi-finals. We'd think totally differently.
In many of those games they lost on penalties they isn’t deserve to get to the penalties eg. Spain 1996 and Italy 2012.
Since winning the World Cup in 1970 england have only beaten 3 top tier teams in tournament finals in 90 minutes and all of these were group games. They beat Spain 1-0 in Euro 80, Holland 4-0 in Euro 96 and Germany 1-0 in Euro 2000.
When you look at it like that historically England have done well to qualify. Getting to the 2nd round or further is a monumental success.
I mean Ireland have probably beaten more top tier teams in finals over 90 minutes than England. I know they have beaten Italy twice for instance.
In many of those games they lost on penalties they isn’t deserve to get to the penalties eg. Spain 1996 and Italy 2012.
Since winning the World Cup in 1970 england have only beaten 3 top tier teams in tournament finals in 90 minutes and all of these were group games. They beat Spain 1-0 in Euro 80, Holland 4-0 in Euro 96 and Germany 1-0 in Euro 2000.
When you look at it like that historically England have done well to qualify. Getting to the 2nd round or further is a monumental success.
I mean Ireland have probably beaten more top tier teams in finals over 90 minutes than England. I know they have beaten Italy twice for instance.
Mmm, not sure that's true (I saw your correction, I don't mean that). Germany 1990 and 1996 they should have won before it got to penalties, Argentina 1998 they were the better side with 10 men, Portugal 2004 was a pretty even game, as was Portugal 2006 - again with 10 men. I agree about Italy and Spain, but I can't see how you can make the claim about "many". If a match goes to penalties then it's not that likely one side has battered the other after all.
Disagree with Germany 90. 96 yes they were the better team but weren’t against Spain before. 2004 and 2006 Portugal was even but I didn’t class Portugal as a top tier team. I mean I guess you could include them.
My point still stands though that when it comes to finals England have only beaten one team convincingly - Holland in 1996.
Now look at Italy, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Holland, Argentina and even others and they will have beaten plenty of great teams over 90 minutes in finals. Of course they also will have had wins and losses in shoot outs but they have managed to beat a lot more top teams in finals. Even teams that have not been classed as great individually, or countries who have a good pedigree but have a poor batch (Germany 2002, Italy last year) still mange to beat good teams in the finals. This is something England fail to do.
Over the last period Sven’s England were the best squad, but even they lacked tournament mentality.
I mean plenty of teams with much worse squads have fared much better over that time period. Greece and Denmark both won the Euros.
For me England need to find a style and system that suits as well as removing the burden of expectation. If they continue to pick players such as Rashford, Henderson and Lingard on the basis of their shirts they won’t get anywhere. I’m not saying they can’t be in the set up but asking those to win games against the top teams is asking for disaster. They just don’t have the guile. It’s this tubthumping of certain players though that holds England back. Beckham and Rooney for example being pandered to for instance.