Why England dont win

[Lurch]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

[Guest Mickey Kane]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

No-one is disputing the general gist of what "that guy" is saying...If you bother to actually break off your alliance for 2 seconds and think about what I said, then you'd realise the argument is flawed.It ain't a hard thing to comprehend.

[Mr Q]

Just because it works in the premiership though, does not mean it will work on the world stage against the likes of Brazil, France etcAnd i swear apart from maybe italy, non of the recent world cup/european championship winning teams have had this core base from a club. A good case study in support of the argument though would be 1966 world cup team, with all there west ham players. But meh that was over 40 years ago.

[Guest Tronics]

Combo's in international football work as long as those combo's are played in club football.And in the case of Hargo and Carrick it isn't the case.I would like nothing better then to see more United players playing for England but if they're not playing together at club level i see no sense in bringing them through on the international stage, it makes no sense imo.But the point remains the national squad should reflect the best performing teams in the league, if they have English players to pick from, Arsenal stand up, lol.

[Numero001]

Point was made on the 1st page...Point was debated from 1st to the middle of the 2nd page...Point was then settled. How Foster, Walcott came up? Boy...Don't be bitter "that guy" Cream, you're admin, just make a Man United room and self-glorify in there...

Thats not true you know. Not to be rude but I think you kinda got confused. He was saying it should be a Man U backbone and you took that to mean a combo of the top 4 teams. To me, that was the opposite of what he was saying. Was a bit miffed to be honest.I think what he is saying is right. They should have a backbone of players that play with each other week in week out. The England team is not that good to have otherwise really.

[Agony]

[mourinho]BE CHAMPIONS![/mourinho]

That reminds me*goes to see if the new episode is up*

[Lurch]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

No-one is disputing the general gist of what "that guy" is saying...If you bother to actually break off your alliance for 2 seconds and think about what I said, then you'd realise the argument is flawed.It ain't a hard thing to comprehend.

That post wasn't aimed at you but looks like you've taken offence, oh well. Anyway... LOL @ the 'argument flawed'. TBF I was skimming through most posts but I can't see anywhere where you have pinpointed a flawed argument. You believe with the current England setup, thats already the case but it clearly isn't... Remember we're talking combos. I see no example of players who play together at club level that haven't worked for the England setup. Whereas the Neville and Beckham, Owen and Heskey are examples that have been given that have worked. Lampard and Gerrard are bait examples of two great players, different clubs but don't work. They've met up on numerous occasions with the England squad but that time together isn't enough to forge a proper working pair.Anyways, the setups never been tried so there isn't a definitive answer.But I tell you what is flawed the current England setup, now that's flawed.

[Guest Mickey Kane]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

No-one is disputing the general gist of what "that guy" is saying...If you bother to actually break off your alliance for 2 seconds and think about what I said, then you'd realise the argument is flawed.It ain't a hard thing to comprehend.

That post wasn't aimed at you but looks like you've taken offence, oh well. Anyway... LOL @ the 'argument flawed'. TBF I was skimming through most posts but I can't see anywhere where you have pinpointed a flawed argument. You believe with the current England setup, thats already the case but it clearly isn't... Remember we're talking combos. I see no example of players who play together at club level that haven't worked for the England setup. Whereas the Neville and Beckham, Owen and Heskey are examples that have been given that have worked. Lampard and Gerrard are bait examples of two great players, different clubs but don't work. They've met up on numerous occasions with the England squad but that time together isn't enough to forge a proper working pair.Anyways, the setups never been tried so there isn't a definitive answer.But I tell you what is flawed the current England setup, now that's flawed.

That sir, is when you lost...

[Numero001]

This is just bare catching feelings and being 'fraid to admit that "that guy" has a point 'cause they dont wanna get quoted in a next debate and the loyalty to their team questioned.A team that has the same selection for a couple years but play every 3 months for example are not gonna have the same familiarity as a group of around 5 players that play week in, week out, or are they?

[Lurch]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

No-one is disputing the general gist of what "that guy" is saying...If you bother to actually break off your alliance for 2 seconds and think about what I said, then you'd realise the argument is flawed.It ain't a hard thing to comprehend.

That post wasn't aimed at you but looks like you've taken offence, oh well. Anyway... LOL @ the 'argument flawed'. TBF I was skimming through most posts but I can't see anywhere where you have pinpointed a flawed argument. You believe with the current England setup, thats already the case but it clearly isn't... Remember we're talking combos. I see no example of players who play together at club level that haven't worked for the England setup. Whereas the Neville and Beckham, Owen and Heskey are examples that have been given that have worked. Lampard and Gerrard are bait examples of two great players, different clubs but don't work. They've met up on numerous occasions with the England squad but that time together isn't enough to forge a proper working pair.Anyways, the setups never been tried so there isn't a definitive answer.But I tell you what is flawed the current England setup, now that's flawed.

That sir, is when you lost...

Lol, then point me in the right direction! Cos skimming through nothing caught my attention to think nah the whole things bullshit.AND don't tell me you read every post thoroughly cos that would be LIE!

[Guest ShabbzE3]

WHERES THE MANCHESTER UNITED ROOMTHERES A GOOD 5 OR 6 FANS HERE WHO CLOG UP THE SPORTS ROOM WITH THERE BAIT MAKE UR OWN ROOMWE KNOW YOUR GAME PLAN

[Guest Mickey Kane]

This is just bare catching feelings and being 'fraid to admit that "that guy" has a point 'cause they dont wanna get quoted in a next debate and the loyalty to their team questioned.A team that has the same selection for a couple years but play every 3 months for example are not gonna have the same familiarity as a group of around 5 players that play week in, week out, or are they?

Beg you re-read the whole thread then come back because on at least 3 occasions, I agreed with "that guy". Not only that, but I gave examples of when it's worked for other successful international teams.However, I pointed out he didn't articulate his argument well and the bait f*cked it up a lil'. Something, even HE admitted to and addressed later. In addition to that, I gave examples of when England have had 'club combo's' and it didn't work i.e. World Cup 2002 (Beckham & Scholes, Owen & Heskey)...

[Guest Mickey Kane]

Sports rooms proper sectioned.Every topic turns in to some loyalty based arguement with judgements getting clouded by support for a club or hate for a club. Bare biased opinions.My understanding of this topic is "that guy" used the 'Man Utd backbone' as bait cos he knows using an example from one specific club will get next fans fired up. But the point he's making is if Chelsea or Man Utd or Arsenal or whoever and the top club at the time has an English core who are performing together at high level, then shouldn't the England manager consider playing them together?Currently it's Man Utd who so happen to be the team he supports so course man's going to hype it even more. But that's my understanding, people interpret things different ways.

No-one is disputing the general gist of what "that guy" is saying...If you bother to actually break off your alliance for 2 seconds and think about what I said, then you'd realise the argument is flawed.It ain't a hard thing to comprehend.

That post wasn't aimed at you but looks like you've taken offence, oh well. Anyway... LOL @ the 'argument flawed'. TBF I was skimming through most posts but I can't see anywhere where you have pinpointed a flawed argument. You believe with the current England setup, thats already the case but it clearly isn't... Remember we're talking combos. I see no example of players who play together at club level that haven't worked for the England setup. Whereas the Neville and Beckham, Owen and Heskey are examples that have been given that have worked. Lampard and Gerrard are bait examples of two great players, different clubs but don't work. They've met up on numerous occasions with the England squad but that time together isn't enough to forge a proper working pair.Anyways, the setups never been tried so there isn't a definitive answer.But I tell you what is flawed the current England setup, now that's flawed.

That sir, is when you lost...

Lol, then point me in the right direction! Cos skimming through nothing caught my attention to think nah the whole things bullshit.AND don't tell me you read every post thoroughly cos that would be LIE!

Re-read the first 2 pages and argument was more or less settled then. Some bullshit came up about Foster & Walcott, Rsonist & TF/S4DK were playing footsies again and then it came back.I've been locked on this thread since it 1st dropped.

[Guest RBG]

I dont see how its bait though....What other english teams could "that guy" honestly use to prove his point....Liverpool have pennant, gerrard, crouch, carragher but only 2 of them are usual starters and 1 is retired for internation football...Chelsea have terry,lampard,a.cole,swp,j.cole but again they are not assured to start in my eyes...Arsenal....Man Utd have ferdinand, brown, neville, foster, scholes, carrick, hargreaves, rooneyA Man Utd backbone looks stronger then a backbone of any other team imo...Doesnt really sound clear but yeah...

[Numero001]

This is just bare catching feelings and being 'fraid to admit that "that guy" has a point 'cause they dont wanna get quoted in a next debate and the loyalty to their team questioned.A team that has the same selection for a couple years but play every 3 months for example are not gonna have the same familiarity as a group of around 5 players that play week in, week out, or are they?

Beg you re-read the whole thread then come back because on at least 3 occasions, I agreed with "that guy". Not only that, but I gave examples of when it's worked for other successful international teams.However, I pointed out he didn't articulate his argument well and the bait f*cked it up a lil'. Something, even HE admitted to and addressed later. In addition to that, I gave examples of when England have had 'club combo's' and it didn't work i.e. World Cup 2002 (Beckham & Scholes, Owen & Heskey)...

But was anyone talking to you?Uh, nuh

[Rsonist]

Ahh once I brought Matt up it suddenly changed... Again funny that...You said what I said earlier, basically claiming that as West Ham have no expectations Green can go about his football and make the odd wonder save here and there which gets raved upon, while Robinson (lol) is expected to make them at a club like Tottenham (again lol) where there is more expectation... My memory aint the greatest but I'll remember that one cos I thought to myself seriously Rsonist should be banned from commenting on players who play for clubs of Spurs rivals...

Since when the f*ck were West Ham Tottenham's rivals?!Again, like you say all of a sudden, lol @ you.Go on shake your head like a clown now.

[HangTheDJ]

S.Taylor,Gardner, Knight, Davies, Barry,Routledge, NRC, Osbourne, Young,Harewood, Agbonlahor.That should be England's XI IMO.

[Benicio del Toney]

This is just bare catching feelings and being 'fraid to admit that "that guy" has a point 'cause they dont wanna get quoted in a next debate and the loyalty to their team questioned.A team that has the same selection for a couple years but play every 3 months for example are not gonna have the same familiarity as a group of around 5 players that play week in, week out, or are they?

But if you bring Brazil into the equation things get a little messy.Brazilian players are separated by continents, not clubs or a few hundred miles, yet they always get semi finals/finals no qualms.

[Guest RBG]

This is just bare catching feelings and being 'fraid to admit that "that guy" has a point 'cause they dont wanna get quoted in a next debate and the loyalty to their team questioned.A team that has the same selection for a couple years but play every 3 months for example are not gonna have the same familiarity as a group of around 5 players that play week in, week out, or are they?

But if you bring Brazil into the equation things get a little messy.Brazilian players are separated by continents, not clubs or a few hundred miles, yet they always get semi finals/finals no qualms.

They have better players then us though...

[TF S4DK]

Ahh once I brought Matt up it suddenly changed... Again funny that...You said what I said earlier, basically claiming that as West Ham have no expectations Green can go about his football and make the odd wonder save here and there which gets raved upon, while Robinson (lol) is expected to make them at a club like Tottenham (again lol) where there is more expectation... My memory aint the greatest but I'll remember that one cos I thought to myself seriously Rsonist should be banned from commenting on players who play for clubs of Spurs rivals...

Since when the f*ck were West Ham Tottenham's rivals?!Again, like you say all of a sudden, lol @ you.Go on shake your head like a clown now.

Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham, in that order...

[TF S4DK]

S.Taylor,Gardner, Knight, Davies, Barry,Routledge, NRC, Osbourne, Young,Harewood, Agbonlahor.That should be England's XI IMO.

Co-sign.

[Trim]

One thing thats interestin why does everyone think the U21's do so well?Compared to first team aswell

[TF S4DK]

Less pressure, plus a lot aren't playing regular football, so less knackered.

[Badman]

I would agree but 5 or 6 players is hardly a backboneif united had more english players it would make senceim sure that Milan has more than 6 italian nationals in their squad