Why is anybody expecting England to win the World Cup with that spine?
And why is anybody expecting England to win the World Cup at all? The odds of them doing it are pretty small really. You need luck.
Send your mails to theeditor@football365.com
A sensible letter on England and what they should expect
The reality is that current England are one of the top 5-6 teams in international football. In any given tournament, they could win the whole thing. Even then though, the odds of them actually winning it are still quite low. Let’s give the remaining 7-32 teams a 15% chance going in. Pre-tournament this would easily include Croatia and Morocco, so this is probably a conservative figure. That leaves 85%, theoretically, for the remaining 6 teams. So that’s about a 14% chance for each of the top 6 teams (85/6). If this is even remotely close to accurate, then current England should expect to win roughly 1 in every 7 major tournaments.
Now, we are talking about current England, so let’s stick to Southgate’s teams. There have been 3 major tournaments and he has reached 1 final and 1 semi-final. That seems about right. It’s also likely true that the talent before for Southgate to draw on was worse. That makes this arguably even more impressive. Of course, what makes this rough is that there are so few major international tournaments. History is full of teams in this 5-6 range that don’t win a major tourney though they are just as good as teams that often do. The winners get praised. The losers typically don’t. The reality is any of this could’ve changed with a slightly different referee choice or player choice, or a kick being slightly lower/higher or left/right.
If Kane’s penalty goes in, or Rashford’s free kick, or if Giroud hits his header a yard in a different direction, or the ref makes a different decision, or a player makes a slightly different run, or whatever, Southgate is still in with a shout of being an absolute legend. Sometimes things just don’t go your way. There is a randomness to everything.
I’m an American living in the UK, and the same thing could be applied to the current U.S. team reaching the quarterfinals. They are roughly in the top 10-15 teams in the world. Fans expecting something more than a round of 16 exit are both realistic (it could happen) and not realistic (it won’t happen as much as they think). It could end up like Morocco, but it hasn’t for any of the other teams in 10-15 sector.
I’m anticipating someone replying with something like “well why do Man City win then; clearly they have more talent” in a mis-applied attempt to critique my email. For starters, there is a major difference between a 38 game season and a 7 game (max) World Cup. The latter allows for a lot more randomness, the same way you can flip a coin 7 times and almost always get heads, but if you do it 38 times you will have a much greater chance of an even split between heads and tails. Randomness dissipates as numbers of events increase. It’s the basis of p values in scientific research (larger sample =’s greater chance of significant effect if it exists). Also, even within that 38 game season oddities can happen. I am a Leicester fan (I lived there for years) and it’s very likely that if that championship season were played 10 times, Leicester win it maybe a few times, and that is pushing it. Those oddities are still contingent on skill (Millwall wouldn’t fluke their way to a title of course) though and are much less likely at larger numbers of events/games.
I guess, in sum, should current England win the World Cup? Yeah, like 1 in 7 times. They don’t get 7 shots though. Adjust expectations accordingly.
Nathan, Newark
…The answer is in the Title, it’s a CUP. No team can guarantee to win a cup. Once it goes to knockout it’s anybody’s to win.
A bit of bad luck and you are out. A bad performance and you are out. A.bad ref’s decision and you are out.
Brazil had a great squad but they’re out. You can’t build a team to win a cup,you can only prepare and hope it goes well.
Gerry Davies
England do not have a spine; they are the US with a striker
Reading the mails and articles today, I found myself thinking England must surely be one of the best teams in the world. And then I thought clearly for a few minutes and came to the following conclusion. England are the U.S. with a striker. You are not on par with France or even Brazil or Croatia.
Let me explain why because I think it’s instructive to be told hard truths so that things may change. England has an exciting team. But your talent is on the wings away from the brain center where matches are won and lost. Brazil have Casmeiro, France have Rabiot and Tchouameni. and Argentina have Messi who apparently plays wherever he likes regardless of how it will ruin their chances against elite opposition. My point is this: the spine of a team is what matters.
A lack of discipline on the wings can be excused if it comes with a countervailing dose of creativity. No such luck in the center. England’s spine is simply not elite.
Pickford is obvious so I won’t go into him. Your center back partnership of Stones and Maguire isn’t great. It is your weak point like the Americans. Great teams build from the back. In Maguire, the less said the better (you just look at him and know he’s not at this level). In Stones, you have a charity case playing for the best team in the country for no other reason than he’s English and it makes up the numbers. Without Dias or Lapore, he is like Gomez with Van Dijk. Look at Italy in 2020 or France in 2018. It’s very strange for a country that produced Rio and Sol and Ledley to be so light in this area of the pitch, but you are and you need to accept it.
Your number six might be great, but we simply won’t know until he plays in the biggest games on one of the biggest teams. The only potentially elite member of your spine is your striker, but to a lesser extent you just think he needs that small step up to the truly elite teams to improve himself for games exactly like Saturday. The U.S. has a second-rate defense, a potentially great number six, and no elite striker. What we do have is the same as you: lots of fun, exciting options on the wings who make us drool, unable to understand how we could lose games. Pulisic and Reyna and Weah will not win you the games that matter just the same as Saka, Foden, and Grealish.
I thought for a moment during the U.S.-Holland game after we halved the deficit that we could push on to win. But as we saw and Mr. Van Gaal suggested afterwards, we were right where they wanted us. And that’s exactly what happened to your lot against France, and we both didn’t have the brains in the center required to understand what was happening to us as the tragedy unfolded.
In all seriousness, could you imagine adding Rio and Sol to this England team? You’d win everything for the next ten years even with Declan playing ahead of them.
Niall, Annapolis
…Matt Pitt correctly points out that Southgate has continued England’s dire lack of success in knockout games. But to say Southgate had a vastly superior squad is commonly repeated yet a real stretch.
We have one excellent striker and we have loads of great options in attacking midfield or on the wings, and at right back. However there is no particularly quality or depth anywhere else.
Of the 98 squad, for example, Seaman, Campbell, Ince, Adams, Beckham, Shearer, Sheringham, McManaman, Scholes, Owen and Les Ferdinand would all probably have replaced people in the current squad were they available for selection. In fact Ian Wright and Robbie Fowler didn’t even make the squad and are both comfortably better than any second striker available now.
Of the 2002 squad Ashley Cole, Rio, plus the repeated players above would all make it, as would Gerrard, although he was injured at the time.
The 2006 squad was probably strongest of all, but managed with a horrible lack of imagination that saw us playing a failing rigid 4-4-2. I’d argue only Kane and the rigth back of your preference would be an immediate upgrade in that starting XI.
We have a really good batch of players now but as ever we have problem positions and a lack of balance. Fingers crossed there’s a world class keeper, a genuine competitor for Kane and a couple of quality centre backs coming through. Then we can start expecting, rather than hoping for, a team capable of taking major scalps even when luck isn’t on our side.
Nick G
Maybe England just aren’t good at football
Is it quite possible that England just doesn’t have the talent to succeed in the World Cup? Let’s face it, some countries are naturally gifted at some sports. In Kenya, we have world renown long distance runners. It’s what we do. The Aussies have cricket while New Zealand are quite good at rugby. Americans can sprint. Indian cricket anyone?
So before you scream Gareth Southgate bad, think of English football and if it can stand up to the quality, style and flair that we’ve seen in past glorious teams like Brazil in the 70s.
My piece of advice is for the English to come to terms with the fact that they’re just not good at football and accept that they will fail more often than succeed. That will save us all from the histrionics every two years when you lose at a major tournament.
Gitonga (My natural talent is stand up comedy)
Erm…
Matt Pitt asks ‘when was the last time England beat someone you wouldn’t necessarily expect them to beat in a knock-out scenario?’
Isn’t the answer July 2021, when they defeated Germany 2:0 in the Round of 16 at Euro 2020?
Dara O’Reilly, London
Everybody’s favourite Ipswich fan is back
So plucky England played well but didn’t quite get it across the line against the giants of France.
Can we look a bit closer at our minnows?
Let’s start with the weakest link, the defence. Shaw (£30m); Walker, Stones, Maguire all over £50m when that was a lot of money. Two of the four were bought by that fraud Guardiola, and have played over 200 times for him.
In midfield, we have two outstanding young guns who would break the British transfer record if they were sold anytime soon. They’re supported by an actual Champions League winning captain.
In attack, we have one of the finest young players in the world; a world-class striker who is also the highest English international goalscorer of all time. Finally, we have an Arsenal wonderboy who would be targeted by every major European club if he ever left London. In backup, we have the current British transfer record holder and a plethora of other talent.
Gareth Southgate is paid £5 million per year to manage this motley crew.
Does it make me an entitled, xenophobic bigot to expect a bit more from this incredible team, and its highly-paid manager?
Matthew (ITFC)
And he has a mate also called Matthew
I think the discourse around England’s World Cup exit has been strange. To hear all the chatter, you’d think this was a Brazil 82 side that had played wonderful, flamboyant football before being harshly cut down in their prime.
Yes, you could say England played better in losing to France than they did in losing to Croatia and Italy. I suppose they did, to the extent that they didn’t cower in the corner like scared children, waiting to get beaten but the end result was still the same. No killer instinct, no winning mentality, everyone being everyone’s mate all the time (and I’m aware I sound like Roy Keane). Going out a round earlier than the last WC and two rounds earlier than the last Euros constitutes “progress” (allegedly). Does that mean that the Southgate-sceptics (nobody over the age of 16 should ever use the word “hater”) were right to say that the successes of 2018 and 2020 were purely down to easy draws?
I would also take exception with the English, er, exceptionalism in relation to the young players who will “inevitably” get better (Dele Alli says ‘hi’) and provide the platform for success in 2026. You think France, Spain, Holland etc don’t have a wave of superstar youngsters ready to be unleashed on the world. This is the sort of stuff we used to hear about Arsenal’s Carling Cup wonderkids.
Matthew
PS: If France win the World Cup, does that make Deschamps – winner as captain, twice a winner as manager – the greatest man in World Cup history? Discuss.
Bin the bookies; back Bielsa
Reading the recent article on the next potential England manager made me chuckle and sigh with exasperation in equal measure.
Not only because the bookies are doubtless right, but also that they have thrown completely predictable (but hilariously illogical) names in to the mix; is Pochettino really the answer to winning international tournaments? A man with zero International managerial experience and has failed with his country as a player. For similar reasons, any Lampard or Gerrard notion is utterly laughable (the less said on the coaching qualities of those two, the better). Tuchel? Won’t touch it, trust me.
International management is a beautifully different beast to club management for so many reasons. Furthermore, nearly all international managers do not win a trophy at their first attempt; the rare exceptions being national icons and coaching legends with vast previous experience of winning – think Mancini, Lippi or Scolari – clearly England don’t have this option, so a change of manager most likely means not winning Euro 2024 and going through a subsequent rebuild (Southgate naysayers, think on). Many believe that this group of players will be ready to win in 2024, so if Gareth does end up a goner, a very specific criteria will need to be met for the new manager.
1. Have they won anything previously at international level?
2. Do they understand English culture/have English coaching experience?
3. How many tournament cycles have they coached through at international level?
4. Will the coaching style fit with the players?
Ultimately, tournament experience is king. Therefore, these are the following options: Steve Cooper, Bielsa, and Weigmann. Possibly Mancini. It’s a short (and not particularly attractive) list, of which Bielsa is the clear standout (depending on whether you Mancini would “fit”). One contradictory grenade to throw: Mourinho as a wildcard option. If anyone is going to win a tournament at the first attempt, it will be him.
My view? Gareth deserves one more shot. Every tournament cycle has seen an evolution in style and quality, and his experience is now very valuable. Post 2024? Give it Bielsa til the end of the (2026) season. By then, we should have a few more worthy candidates to choose from (John Herdman, I’m looking at you).
Rob S
On Spurs and Kane. Again
“Nowhere near the best” Kane: 69 taken, 11 missed.
“Penalty expert” Milner: 35 taken, 5 missed.
They seem quite similar to me, but I’m not viewing those stats through red-tinted glasses.
I’d be stunned if any Spurs supporter wanted to see any other player on penalty duty for us. I couldn’t care less about the view of England fans, having seen more than enough nonsense about Wilson starting over Kane to remind me of the remarkable wally-base England has. And I would be more than happy for him to retire from international duty after he gets one more goal. Protect those delicate ankles, and give every one of those spectacular buffoons their prize: Tammy Abraham labouring up front. Pre-tournament injury panics over DCL’s fitness, having only played 8 games that season. Questions over whether or not Rashford would be better off playing wide around a creative centre forward.
Although I can indeed see the logic around players who move for a greater challenge being more useful to the national team, and those who maintain a certain comfort level being less valued. This probably explains why Jesus can’t get a game for Brazil, after running away from the pressure of City for the easy life at Arsenal.
I don’t know if it is a particularly English condition, but there is a strange desire, almost a need, to move onto the next supposed big thing as soon as possible, no matter how good the current big thing may be. Every tournament exit is followed by articles listing the players that England ‘must now build around’, and every one of those lists is full of people who will barely scrape together 5 caps at best, and more than a few who won’t even be PL players by the time of the next tournament. Ability is just one of several factors that make for a successful international footballer, and while some are easy to predict, we’ve all read countless ‘where are they now?’ articles about one-time certainties who disappeared down the leagues. Rushing valuable players out of the team for the sake of novelty is not to the benefit of anyone.
As for what England would do under Pep, Conte, Klopp or even Potter and Poch, I think the answer is ‘basically the same’. I’m not sure that any of those managers would be able to instil their playing style and philosophy on a team they spend a few weeks with here and there. They require a lot of time and preparation, which international management will not give them. At international level, simple pragmatism is effective. It is not a space for long-term project-style managers.
thayden