Semi-Neutral
Sir Alupp Heynrguson
Russia as a team is comparable to England, as is Croatia, but England's players are better than both, save perhaps Modric over England's n. 10, and even then it's debatable.
DonAndres
Wild Man of Borneo
To throw in my 2 cents, England's players are never really as good as they are rated. The only reason they are ever rated this high is because they play in the English league. English is the most widely used language in the world by a large margin so obviously English football is going to reach a MUCH wider audience. With all the viewers and all the media, most players get overhyped to a huge extent at an extremely young age and then fans are left scratching their heads wondering why they didn't grow up to be amazing like foreign talents whom they have never heard of. Obviously England does have some great players such as Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Cole, Baines, and to some extent Wilshere. However there are also the highly overrated Walcott, Chamberlain, Zaha, Sterling, Young, Carroll, Ferdinand, and somewhat Terry. England just doesn't blend as a team and a lot of their players aren't that great, just well known. That's why it is completely reasonable to say they are as good as Russia or Croatia. You would take that as a huge insult but you don't even watch Russia and Croatia to know that it's not a bad thing. Just because England is by far the most popular NT in the world doesn't mean it's the most successful or talented. You can argue that we are underrating them just because this is a barcelona forum and that we are biased but just look at their history in international success.
Jenks
Senior Member
I would say we're the worst of the best, rather than the best of the worst, personally. Comparable to Russia yes, but easily ahead of Croatia. Last time we played them we beat them 5-1, and the time before that 1-4.
His career seemed to stall ever since he started banging that lass from Corrie. He does play quite regularly though for Middlesbrough, he just hasn't been all that impressive, not to the extent that people were expecting of him anyway. Still, the odd bit of magic here and there:
His career seemed to stall ever since he started banging that lass from Corrie. He does play quite regularly though for Middlesbrough, he just hasn't been all that impressive, not to the extent that people were expecting of him anyway. Still, the odd bit of magic here and there:
Last edited:
S
Smile
Guest
That's what i would describe us as tbf.
S
Smile
Guest
Reports I've read on him they've been good and the games I've seen of him I've been impressed.
It's is a loan though and loanees quite often fail to shine as bright as they do for their parent club, i was never impressed with Wilshere on loan at Bolton, Welbeck only showed bits and pieces at Sunderland, Cleverley at Wigan.
Teams like Boro aren't afraid to play the long ball and that style will never make a McEachran type player look good. I do fear for McEachran more than any other young player coming through though, clearly a talent, but how many opportunities will Chelsea give him? A club hardly renowed for giving youth a chance, they'd rather buy an already established player than give someone like McEachran an opportunity.
Echo30Mike
New member
he's every inch as good a player as i have ever seen as a 17 year old. he runs rings around the opposition for 90+ minutes, and just when you think he's gonna hit the wall, he'll sprint back 50 yards and mug an attacking player and then he'll get up and make a killer pass. he rarely gives away the ball, rarely misses a pass, he has a good shot on him and his energy levels/workrate are second to none. he has man city, man u, liverpool, arsenal, chelski, newcastle, everton, fulham, bayern munich and barcelona regularly scouting him. he made his england u21 debut as a 17 year old, and i'm sure as sh+t, he will become a regular england player, and a good one at that. hearing brendan rodgers earmark him as a longterm replacement for steven gerrard speaks volumes. you show me one player who is as complete for such a young lad ( he's 18 now ) as will hughes, and you'll struggle. And i'll tell you this for nothing, he could drop into any top team in the country just once, and he'll keep the " stallwart" on the bench. He is that good. I doubt derby will sell him for £15 mill this january, more like £18 or £20 mill, and if he has a good game against chelski in the televised fa cup in january, everybody will want him. point to note aswell, I expect derby to be in the premiership at the end of the 2013/14 season, who knows, derby might even hold onto him...
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
He didn't want to disrespect Derby.
AfricanBavarian
New member
One reason i have always been a bit bitter towards English players is that they seem to get a lot more attention than foreign players. Germany has a factory of talented 17-19 year olds just as good as this guy playing playing at the top tier yet never draw as much attention until years later when people actually see they are better than the English lads they were fawning over. For example Timo Werner is 17 plays for Stuttgart and became the youngest player to score a brace in the BuLi and the guy is amazing. Ive never seen this guy play and im not saying that he isnt good or going to be good im just ranting some frustration 
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
German players usually get better with age because of three main factors:-
1) They get properly mentally prepared and thus much more mentally tougher
2) They don't have to be THE best technical players, but they do have to be able to handle the pressure and offer consistency which comes from mental, tactical and psychological preparation from the all young age groups. 6-9, 12-16 and 16-21. Which has been done for years and years in Germany - not so much in England.
3) There are four pillars of the game: Physical, Technical, Tactical and Psychological. The last one is the key one for professional football. That's where I think they can be brought to task. That's also why I believe that ex-professionals should be at the 18-21 age group (of coaching), rather than first team or pre-16's. You need to mentally prepare players for the step-up. The technical work is done. They need to be exposed to the experience of having made the step up. So coaching is so much better in Germany.
However Hughes is a good player and will be in the premier league soon enough. An English midfield of Wilshere, Hughes and Barkley is actually pretty exciting scenario.
1) They get properly mentally prepared and thus much more mentally tougher
2) They don't have to be THE best technical players, but they do have to be able to handle the pressure and offer consistency which comes from mental, tactical and psychological preparation from the all young age groups. 6-9, 12-16 and 16-21. Which has been done for years and years in Germany - not so much in England.
3) There are four pillars of the game: Physical, Technical, Tactical and Psychological. The last one is the key one for professional football. That's where I think they can be brought to task. That's also why I believe that ex-professionals should be at the 18-21 age group (of coaching), rather than first team or pre-16's. You need to mentally prepare players for the step-up. The technical work is done. They need to be exposed to the experience of having made the step up. So coaching is so much better in Germany.
However Hughes is a good player and will be in the premier league soon enough. An English midfield of Wilshere, Hughes and Barkley is actually pretty exciting scenario.
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
Various media outlets are reporting it. So its not from one source.
Home of Barca Fans
