England

[Maradona37]

It doesn't matter if some of them are over-rated to an extent. England still have one of the strongest squads in Europe, especially in attack. A lot of Nations aren't what they were at this moment in time. Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Croatia... All pale shadows of many of the teams they've had in the past. Even this Spain team is nowhere near as strong as it was 10 years ago.

Southgate is a Championship (at best) level manager. We've made finals and semi-finals despite of him, not because of. Of course people will point a finger at him, he's a manager that was bad enough to get relegated with Middlesbrough before being given the England job. He has absolutely no idea how to handle the likes of Foden and Bellingham, these players are way too big for him. They go from the genius of Guardiola and Ancelotti every week to Gareth Southgate.

I also couldn't care less if England couldn't play the way Spain do. It's not the only way to win football games. But it was actually the first game in the tournament where England didn't have more possession than the opposition. Southgate also takes some of the blame for that by not selecting the right players in the final. Wharton and Palmer would have certainly helped us keep the ball better, as would Grealish who was sat at home.

Mind you, weren't you also on the Scholes/Gerrard/Lampard thread saying all of them were completely over-rated? Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to have some sort of weird agenda with English players from what I've seen.

Firstly, despite me being prickly, you have made some good points that I do acknowledge, and I respect the effort you have gone to to argue your case. It isn't anything personal this debate, I hope I haven't come across as overly abrasive. I just feel you're getting a little carried away with the media hype about them. I am actually enjoying your posts even if I do disagree. I have given you a like for backing up your points and being relatively civil with it.

That aside, and First of all, I have just put down some thoughts. So this will be like a fucking dissertation, My apologies but I hope you read it. I respect your opinion even if I vehemently disagree.

TLDR - I am not saying England don't have good players, past or present. I am talking about the insular leftover mindset of the British empire like England have the best players in the world and should be regarded as favourites and walk all over teams. It isn't true and it's a result of the hype surrounding the PL, which is like football's version of the X Factor in terms of glamour.

Main Post:

Believing that England have the best players going (note I didn't say they weren't good players, I am just insulted that the English make them out to be far the best squad in the world, though I concede that international football is in a lull across the board) is the problem. I keep being proved right on them failing and have been for my entire life and I am 42 now, so there must be more to it than just managers.

Also, I agree Southgate is a poor manager but -AGAIN - it isn't all the manager's fault. You're completely letting the players off the hook by giving them a free pass for being rubbish just because Southgate is a bad manager. Like I said before, MANAGERS ARE NOT MAGICIANS. But you totally overlooked that point and kept going on about him.

It's an irrelevant point you brought up in regards to this generation (though also relevant given it reveals your and the media's mindset) but I I didn't say Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard were 'completely overrated' - They're all good players - Gerrard I find very overrated (despite being good) because he was far better physically than technically and had low football IQ (arrigo Sacchi agrees with me) and I simply prefer high IQ, high technique players to Hollywood ball passion merchant Roy of the Rovers types. The problem is when they're compared to guys like Xavi, Pirlo Iniesta, Modric, Kroos - they don't belong on that level at all. Very good players yes, but not as good as the best in the world or of all-time, which is what many of their peers became. Maybe the fact they were all completely underwhelming for England would back me up.

If you reply to me that G. L and S WERE on Xavi and Modric's level, then that will prove to me that you've bought into the hype a bit.

Like I said, thinking guys like Gerrard, Lampard and Bellingham are among the best 'midfielders' in the world - like English people sometimes do - is everything that is wrong with the English game. They're all attacking players who come alive in the box, but they cannot control games anywhere near like Xavi or Modric. This is why England play such wank football even to this day.

Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes were all good players, but COMPARED TO THEIR PEERS - yes, they were overrated. The English talk about Scholes like he's better than Xavi, which is completely insulting to football fans with no English or Man United bias. I don't care about the quotes or appeals to authority either - you can find those about all good players.

It's also no real surprise that England had more possession than the teams they played, other than Spain. In saying that, despite having more possession than the Swiss (if they did), the Swiss still played much more cohesive football when they had the ball, as did Slovakia.

Your mention of what I think of Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes actually proves my point that you buy English hype - it shows that you believed it with the previous generation too. You probably thought they were all brilliant and the best in the world - the problem in that generation is that (as opposed to this generation) there WERE loads of other top international teams.

So yeah, maybe England will finally win something in this era. But that speaks more to it being a weak era. If these players played in 2006 they'd get nowhere near a trophy, as the hyped up failure of a 'Golden Generation' didn't.

I also don't have an agenda with English players - some English players I rate highly in this generation: Wharton, Grealish, Palmer, Mainoo (though a little overhyped), Kane and others. I acknowledge that Bellend, Saka, Foden are good players (overrated doesn't mean I don't rate them), but I am a contrarian and take offence to the hype in the media as if they're geniuses, when they're not. They're good but not AS GOOD as the media makes them out to be. Saka especially is a poor man's Salah and will never be anything more than that.

'Wharton and Palmer would have certainly helped us keep the ball better, as would Grealish who was sat at home.'

Agree with that, Palmer and Grealish are actually better in terms of continental style (which is what you need in tournaments) than Bellingham and Saka. I do rate plenty English players, ironically usually the back ups more than the hyped ones. I'd also say (as I have said elsewhere on here) that Palmer is England's most talented player - he's an absolute gem.

Going back to Gerrard - his and Beckham's propensity to play so many Hollywood balls, ignoring the short game and conceding the ball for England sabotaged England and made it so hard for them. That was a big problem in that generation. Yet English people praised them for it, blows my mind.

I had a follow up post typed out which I accidentally deleted, but it was basically that Guardiola found out counter-attack football years ago and the best teams to play like Spain, Man City, Barca or more of a hybrid counter-press style like Germany, Bayern or Liverpool. So while Spain isn't the only way to play, it's by far the most successful and gives you a miles greater chance of winning. Very few counter-attack teams are successful now, maybe just Real Madrid (and with them it's only other big teams they play that way against). So if you don't wanna play pass and move, dribbling, combinations - which is the essence of football - what identity do you want for your NT?

I could go on and on but that's enough.