as an England fan what has your reaction been to 2008 ? has it actually sunk in that we are not thier competing or dont u care or are u happy the players are having to watch this stewing cause they aint there , is the competition having as positive impact on u as it normally would or are u enjoying it more that England are not there ,is it a postitive thing that England are not there and we have had to reavaluate the way develop players etc ,could we possibly benefit from it come the world cup should we qualify obviously

what are your thoughts

I think we will benefit majorly, we will go on to win the world cup

Only thing that makes me sick is watching the ****ty teams run around like tit heads and think to myself... Why the hell arent we there

And i suppose it gives us all a break, saving holidays from work, and saving the heartbreak of losing a another penalty shoot out

And i suppose it gives us all a break, saving holidays from work, and saving the heartbreak of losing a another penalty shoot out

at lest Mclaren has gone and we have a proper manager incharge now who understands the flaws in his team /squad and is trying to encourage the team to pass the ball through midfield and is gonna be selecting players on from rather than Reputation ,if we had qualified Mclaren could have been taking us to the World Cup :nonono:

i hope u are right fella to lift the World Cup would be the best day of my life ,remember France did not qualify for the world cup in America and they went onto become world and European champions ,a bit dillusional i know but i can dream

mixed feelings, it does leave me cold watching a tournament that we aren't involved in. However we'd still have Stevie Mac at the helm if we had qualified so that's a plus, I reckon we would have crashed out like we did in Euro 88 when we lost all 3 games.

I think my interest will pick up in the knockout stages when the games mean something.

I'm not sure what you're all getting at by saying McClaren would still be in the job if we'd have qualified, if we'd qualified doesn't that mean he's done his job right.

I'm routing for Holland, its heart break every 2 years.. So its all good, gives us all a break, a kick off the arse and bring on the world cup!

Well beat Croatia home & away in the qualifiers

I'm routing for Holland, its heart break every 2 years.. So its all good, gives us all a break, a kick off the arse and bring on the world cup!

Well beat Croatia home & away in the qualifiers

the Dutch LOL

they have already started the infighting Seedorf has left the squad /team

and Sniejder and Van Persie are carrying injuries

i think the Italians are gonna whoop them TBH

i really cant see them going very far they are the dutch yes but i dont see thier squad as strong as previous squads infact i think its poor in comparison

I think we will benefit majorly, we will go on to win the world cup

Only thing that makes me sick is watching the ****ty teams run around like tit heads and think to myself... Why the hell arent we there

That a bet call mate, going to win the world cup. Haven't you seen France up and coming youth? France depth is quite ridiculous. Brazil will be a force by then again and Argentina too.

Ladbrokes have us 4th favourite at 10/1 to win the World Cup, pretty **** odds thinking about how badly weve performed recently

Argentina 4/1
Brazil 4/1
Italy 6/1
England 10/1
Germany 10/1
Spain 10/1
France 12/1
Holland 16/1
Portugal 20/1

As a Scotland fan I'm getting used to missing out on major tournaments but I have enjoyed the games thus far and just hope the standard of football can rise throughout the tournament rather than start well and end baldy as it did at the last World Cup.

I actually believe because England is not playing the standard of Football has gone up.

I actually believe because England is not playing the standard of Football has gone up.

that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard

how can it have been enhanced with the omission of England when u have teams like Austria playing in it

what an idiot u really are ,no offence

that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard

how can it have been enhanced with the omission of England when u have teams like Austria playing in it

what an idiot u really are ,no offence

In fairness, Austria actually played better against Croatia than England did and some of the football England played at the last World Cup was way below what they are capable of.

In the second half they dominated Croatia. As I said in another post Croatia lack cutting edge without Eduardo. Croatia would have won by more if he'd been playing.

I don't agree about us not being up to standard. Just poor management.

I think we will benefit majorly, we will go on to win the world cupOnly thing that makes me sick is watching the ****ty teams run around like tit heads and think to myself... Why the hell arent we there

Hahaha, but that made me lol.

that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard

how can it have been enhanced with the omission of England when u have teams like Austria playing in it

what an idiot u really are ,no offence

:lol1: :lol1: Flawless cant help getting :owned:

In fairness, Austria actually played better against Croatia than England did and some of the football England played at the last World Cup was way below what they are capable of.

we did'nt have a full strength side against Croatia or Russia for that matter

i admit we did stink Germany out but the point im making is thier are worse sides in 2008 than England so how can anybody claim the quality is better cause England aint there its just stupid IMO

who cares if Austria played better than England they still lost and they have absolutely know chance of making it past the group stage let alone the last 16 or Quarter finals

England would have made the competition more competitive cause they would of at least got out of thier group or had a better chance of progressing than teams like Austria etc ,we have 3 quarter final finishes in the last 3tournaments how is the competition of a better standard when the competitiveness of the competition is diluted by the fact a side capable of making it to the last 16 at the very least is not thier

France did not quality for WC in America but i dare say their were worse teams than the french at the World Cup ,Jack Charltons Ireland were not exactly entertaining and i would 'nt say they had as talented players than the French side that did'nt qualify ,Hell Demark won the damn thing without qualifying & Greece were an absolute disgrace at 2004

lets have it right fellas

we did'nt have a full strength side against Croatia or Russia for that matter

Correct which goes to show that England don't really have the same quality outside their top seven or eight players.

i admit we did stink Germany out but the point im making is thier are worse sides in 2008 than England so how can anybody claim the quality is better cause England aint there its just stupid IMO

A fit England team may have enhanced the quality but nothing I saw of the team under McClaren suggested that would be the case. Of course England have better players than some teams in Euro 2008 but sometimes that is not enough.

who cares if Austria played better than England they still lost and they have absolutely know chance of making it past the group stage let alone the last 16 or Quarter finals

I care and so should you. Austria lack quality but they showed plenty of fight and endeavor - qualities which England lacked in their qualifying campaign.

England would have made the competition more competitive cause they would of at least got out of thier group or had a better chance of progressing than teams like Austria etc ,we have 3 quarter final finishes in the last 3tournaments how is the competition of a better standard when the competitiveness of the competition is diluted by the fact a side capable of making it to the last 16 at the very least is not thier

England may have qualified from the group stages but they finished below Russia and Croatia, neither of which are among the favourites for this tournament so it is difficult to back that point up.

France did not quality for WC in America but i dare say their were worse teams than the french at the World Cup ,Jack Charltons Ireland were not exactly entertaining and i would 'nt say they had as talented players than the French side that did'nt qualify ,Hell Demark won the damn thing without qualifying & Greece were an absolute disgrace at 2004

Jack Charlton's Ireland achieved some incredible results and had the best group of Irish players there has ever been. Your criticism of these teams seems very misguided. Denmark and Greece both achieved something that England have never achieved and in truth have never looked like achieving. These teams have shown a level of commitment and discipline which has been foreign to most English sides. If games were played on paper, preferably English paper, then I'm sure England would have as many World Cups as Brazil but that is not the case.

Correct which goes to show that England don't really have the same quality outside their top seven or eight players.



A fit England team may have enhanced the quality but nothing I saw of the team under McClaren suggested that would be the case. Of course England have better players than some teams in Euro 2008 but sometimes that is not enough.



I care and so should you. Austria lack quality but they showed plenty of fight and endeavor - qualities which England lacked in their qualifying campaign.



England may have qualified from the group stages but they finished below Russia and Croatia, neither of which are among the favourites for this tournament so it is difficult to back that point up.



Jack Charlton's Ireland achieved some incredible results and had the best group of Irish players there has ever been. Your criticism of these teams seems very misguided. Denmark and Greece both achieved something that England have never achieved and in truth have never looked like achieving. These teams have shown a level of commitment and discipline which has been foreign to most English sides. If games were played on paper, preferably English paper, then I'm sure England would have as many World Cups as Brazil but that is not the case.

England are a better side than Greece and Denmark who did'nt earn thier qualification BTW , all cup competitions throw up shocks and that is why they managed to win the competitionin in a league format they would have got no where near the trophy ,thats why good club sides are measured on the success of a league title rather than a good cup run where they can bag a trophy and claim to be the best side ,Porto & Liverpool were both inferior sides to other sides in the CL hence Liverpool league standing at the end of the year and the complete domination AC Milan showed in the final for all but 9 crazy minutes ,even then they won on penaltys

i aint have it Mozza u cant say England were terrible in Germany and pat Greece on the back for the way they played LOL ,u are starting to sound like a bitter scotsman TBH

England were very very unlucky they did not qualify they had a injury hit squad and clueless manager and they paid the price for that, but IMO they are a better side than Austria by a mile and plenty of other smaller nations in the competition ,u think cause Austria played well against the Croats or better than we did as u put it means they are a better side on a par or add more value to the competition :ugh: England scored 2 goals against Croatia and were leading in the match all this with an injury hit squad, they also gave Croatia a gift inside 20 mintues

England are a better side than Greece and Denmark who did'nt earn thier qualification BTW , all cup competitions throw up shocks and that is why they managed to win the competitionin in a league format they would have got no where near the trophy ,thats why good club sides are measured on the success of a league title rather than a good cup run where they can bag a trophy and claim to be the best side ,Porto & Liverpool were both inferior sides to other sides in the CL hence Liverpool league standing at the end of the year and the complete domination AC Milan showed in the final for all but 9 crazy minutes ,even then they won on penaltys

I don't see what your point is here. England probably had better players than the Greek side but so what? The Greeks knew how to play as a unit and get the best out of a group of players who, as you say, were inferior to several teams they played. I understand the nature of cup football throws up shocks but it is the only means we have of figuring out certain things. Greece may not have been the best team in Europe four years ago but they won the trophy and that is what counts.

I wouldn't press the point about Denmark not qualifying for Euro 1992. Denmark benefitted from another teams cheating but they did have some very good players and they are not the only team to have won a tournament they didn't really qualify for, you just need to look at 66 for that.

i aint have it Mozza u cant say England were terrible in Germany and pat Greece on the back for the way they played LOL ,u are starting to sound like a bitter scotsman TBH

What am I meant to be bitter about exactly? For your information, I always hope England win so your comment is wrong on two counts as I like to see England do well and there is absolutely nothing for me to be bitter about in regards to England.

England were very very unlucky they did not qualify they had a injury hit squad and clueless manager and they paid the price for that, but IMO they are a better side than Austria by a mile and plenty of other smaller nations in the competition ,u think cause Austria played well against the Croats or better than we did as u put it means they are a better side on a par or add more value to the competition :ugh: England scored 2 goals against Croatia and were leading in the match all this with an injury hit squad, they also gave Croatia a gift inside 20 mintues

I realise that England has injuries but they certainly were not unlucky. They were given a lifeline by Israel and had a home game against a team already qualified in order to get through themselves. The harsh truth is England were not good enough to qualify from what was generally regarded as an easy group. Every team has to deal with injuries but there is no way that any objective person could say England played better than Austria. I'm not saying Austria have better players but I am saying that we can't assume that England would bring more to the tournament simply because they have bigger names.

I don't see what your point is here. England probably had better players than the Greek side but so what? The Greeks knew how to play as a unit and get the best out of a group of players who, as you say, were inferior to several teams they played. I understand the nature of cup football throws up shocks but it is the only means we have of figuring out certain things. Greece may not have been the best team in Europe four years ago but they won the trophy and that is what counts.

I wouldn't press the point about Denmark not qualifying for Euro 1992. Denmark benefitted from another teams cheating but they did have some very good players and they are not the only team to have won a tournament they didn't really qualify for, you just need to look at 66 for that.



What am I meant to be bitter about exactly? For your information, I always hope England win so your comment is wrong on two counts as I like to see England do well and there is absolutely nothing for me to be bitter about in regards to England.



I realise that England has injuries but they certainly were not unlucky. They were given a lifeline by Israel and had a home game against a team already qualified in order to get through themselves. The harsh truth is England were not good enough to qualify from what was generally regarded as an easy group. Every team has to deal with injuries but there is no way that any objective person could say England played better than Austria. I'm not saying Austria have better players but I am saying that we can't assume that England would bring more to the tournament simply because they have bigger names.

bitter of what i dont know maybe u are the one who needs to answer that there seems to be a lot of snide remarks in your posts redarding England and u are only enforcing the notion cause u seem to think the Austrian Team is bringing more to 2008 than England would ,i cant say its a fact England would bring more to 2008 but the fact Englad have performed in the last 3 tournaments to make it to the quarter finals with virutually the same nucleus of players tells me that when Tournament football comes around they are generally more switched on


England were not unlucky that there main Goal threat was missing for nearly the whole qualification ,they were not unlucky that Mclaren was apointed in the first place they were not unlucky he decided to select Scott Carson to play in game he should have been no where near ,not unlucky that we had nearly a second string team playing against Croatia ,not unlucky that the Russians decided to let us play on thier plastic picth not unlucky that Lescott one of the aforementioned squad players did not track his runner for Russia second Goal & Rooney gave away a Pen after being 2 nil up

every team has injurys yes but as u said yourself England dont have the strength in depth of other sides and im telling u had we had our best 11 available majority of qualification instead of missing for the majority of qualification we would have qualified even Cappello said we were unlucky not to qualify

none of these first choiced yet the all started against Croatia and Carson decided to give Croatia a foot hold in the game

Sol Campbell
Joleon Lescott
Wayne Bridge
Scott Carson
Peter Crouch
Shaun Wright-Phillips

the most notable thing to say about that team was 4 of 5 of the back line were not 1st choice

I'm routing for Holland, its heart break every 2 years.. So its all good, gives us all a break, a kick off the arse and bring on the world cup!

Well beat Croatia home & away in the qualifiers

:boxing: :boxing:

:boxing: :boxing:

Holland won't win son.

bitter of what i dont know maybe u are the one who needs to answer that there seems to be a lot of snide remarks in your posts redarding England and u are only enforcing the notion cause u seem to think the Austrian Team is bringing more to 2008 than England would ,i cant say its a fact England would bring more to 2008 but the fact Englad have performed in the last 3 tournaments to make it to the quarter finals with virutually the same nucleus of players tells me that when Tournament football comes around they are generally more switched on

I'm not making snide remarks I'm just being honest. England may have qualified for the last 8 of the last World Cup but they didn't beat any teams of significance and in fact made some distinctly average teams like Ecuador and Trinidad and Tobago look a lot better than they actually are. As someone who thought England could win the tournament I was bitterly disappointed by their performances.

England were not unlucky that there main Goal threat was missing for nearly the whole qualification ,they were not unlucky that Mclaren was apointed in the first place they were not unlucky he decided to select Scott Carson to play in game he should have been no where near ,not unlucky that we had nearly a second string team playing against Croatia ,not unlucky that the Russians decided to let us play on thier plastic picth not unlucky that Lescott one of the aforementioned squad players did not track his runner for Russia second Goal & Rooney gave away a Pen after being 2 nil up

I don't see what luck has to do with appointing Steve McClaren or the decisions he then made as manager. You can blame artificial pitches and individual errors but I'm afraid bad luck still doesn't explain results like the goalless draw against Macedonia at home when there was nearly a full strength team and certainly more than enough to see off that level of opposition.

every team has injurys yes but as u said yourself England dont have the strength in depth of other sides and im telling u had we had our best 11 available majority of qualification instead of missing for the majority of qualification we would have qualified even Cappello said we were unlucky not to qualify

I go back to the Macedonia game, the majority of the best players were on the park that day and couldn't get the win.

none of these first choiced yet the all started against Croatia and Carson decided to give Croatia a foot hold in the game

Sol Campbell
Joleon Lescott
Wayne Bridge
Scott Carson
Peter Crouch
Shaun Wright-Phillips

the most notable thing to say about that team was 4 of 5 of the back line were not 1st choice

Yep there were some big players missing during that game but it still doesn't explain what happened in the midfield that night because Modric made the England midfield look pedestrian and the biggest problem was the Croatians simply looked hungrier which is completely unacceptable.

Holland B beat Italy, A Team soon

I'm not making snide remarks I'm just being honest. England may have qualified for the last 8 of the last World Cup but they didn't beat any teams of significance and in fact made some distinctly average teams like Ecuador and Trinidad and Tobago look a lot better than they actually are. As someone who thought England could win the tournament I was bitterly disappointed by their performances.



I don't see what luck has to do with appointing Steve McClaren or the decisions he then made as manager. You can blame artificial pitches and individual errors but I'm afraid bad luck still doesn't explain results like the goalless draw against Macedonia at home when there was nearly a full strength team and certainly more than enough to see off that level of opposition.



I go back to the Macedonia game, the majority of the best players were on the park that day and couldn't get the win.



Yep there were some big players missing during that game but it still doesn't explain what happened in the midfield that night because Modric made the England midfield look pedestrian and the biggest problem was the Croatians simply looked hungrier which is completely unacceptable.


all except thier primary goal scorer Michael Owen if u had took Eduardo out of Croatia's team would they have qualified ? u saw how poor they looked the other night without Eduardo

Croatia would not have scored the goals they did against England had Terry ,Ferdinand ,Cole been playing England would have won the Croatia game and the Russia game defensive errors by Campbell & Lescott ,Carson were the reason England conceeded in these games when they were infront or did take the lead against Croatia


England do not deserve to be thier but they were desperately unlucky & on the evidence of some of the teams in 2008 they could have improved the competition more than the likes of Austria IMO

all except thier primary goal scorer Michael Owen if u had took Eduardo out of Croatia's team would they have qualified ? u saw how poor they looked the other night without Eduardo

Croatia would not have scored the goals they did against England had Terry ,Ferdinand ,Cole been playing England would have won the Croatia game and the Russia game defensive errors by Campbell & Lescott ,Carson were the reason England conceeded in these games when they were infront or did take the lead against Croatia


England do not deserve to be thier but they were desperately unlucky & on the evidence of some of the teams in 2008 they could have improved the competition more than the likes of Austria IMO

Terry and Ferdinand played in Zagreb and Croatia managed to win there so again this is just guesswork. England may have won but it would have taken a dramatic improvement in the midfield performance.

The fact that some players were injured is nothing to do with luck, it's just a part of the game and the fact that England couldn't cope without these players is a matter or quality not luck.

Holland B beat Italy, A Team soon

Hardly pal.

Remind me who was out again?

Van Persie? LOL
Roben? LOL

It's all about Vaart, Snjeider, Van nist

Terry and Ferdinand played in Zagreb and Croatia managed to win there so again this is just guesswork. England may have won but it would have taken a dramatic improvement in the midfield performance.

The fact that some players were injured is nothing to do with luck, it's just a part of the game and the fact that England couldn't cope without these players is a matter or quality not luck.

England were still without Michael Owen for most of the games thier main goal threat

u recognise how important having a 1st team Croatian player like Eduardo is but neglect to accept that Michael Owen absense played a major part in Englands failed qualification not to mention the host of injuries to the back line

like i said would Croatia have quailified without Eduardo or the amount of injuries our squad had to contend with for that matter ?

England lacked key players in huge games wether it was looking for a goal [Michael Owen] or defending a goal Rio ,Terry ,Cole

England were still without Michael Owen for most of the games thier main goal threat

u recognise how important having a 1st team Croatian player like Eduardo is but neglect to accept that Michael Owen absense played a major part in Englands failed qualification not to mention the host of injuries to the back line

like i said would Croatia have quailified without Eduardo or the amount of injuries our squad had to contend with for that matter ?

England lacked key players in huge games wether it was looking for a goal [Michael Owen] or defending a goal Rio ,Terry ,Cole

Croatia lost Ivan Klasnic to injury for large parts of their campaign and he returned without the same sparkle he had before his illness but they survived. They beat England in Zagreb withouth Srna who I consider to be one of their best players. All teams have players who are better than others but I still think Croatia were good enough to qualify.

Croatia lost Ivan Klasnic to injury for large parts of their campaign and he returned without the same sparkle he had before his illness but they survived. They beat England in Zagreb withouth Srna who I consider to be one of their best players. All teams have players who are better than others but I still think Croatia were good enough to qualify.

u still did'nt answer my question would they have qualified without Eduardo ?

take a look how many goals he scored in qualifying then take a look at how poor they were without him the other night and while your at it take a look at England record goal scorers charts and come back and tell me Croatia would have qualified without Eduardo and Michael Owen is'nt vitally important to England for his supply of goals

1 or 2 Croatia injurys does not equate to losing your primary goal threat as evident in how poor they were the other night not to mention losing 3 of your best defenders and playing a rookie goal keeper in the biggest game of his life

if u cant see that England were unlucky then JEEZ

u still did'nt answer my question would they have qualified without Eduardo ?

take a look how many goals he scored in qualifying then take a look at how poor they were without him the other night and while your at it take a look at England record goal scorers charts and come back and tell me Croatia would have qualified without Eduardo and Michael Owen is'nt vitally important to England for his supply of goals

1 or 2 Croatia injurys does not equate to losing your primary goal threat as evident in how poor they were the other night not to mention losing 3 of your best defenders and playing a rookie goal keeper in the biggest game of his life

if u cant see that England were unlucky then JEEZ

Let's look at it this way, England were not missing barrel loads of chances during the games they lost. If they had been then perhaps the Owen argument would hold some weight but they weren't. Likewise, Croatia may have missed Eduardo the other night but they didn't squander a stream of chances and their biggest deficincies were in the midfield and full back positions. I only saw Croatia play three or four times during qualifying so it is difficult for me to say whether they would have went through without Eduardo.

This argument about luck is futile. You are basically saying everything is down to luck. You could look at the draw and say England got a fairly easy group, that was lucky. Ultimately luck can only be used as an excuse for so long and you have to start looking at quality as a factor.

Unlucky?, we were ****ing ****e!.

I cringed watching them cunts put up such a pathetic effort to qualify.

Let's look at it this way, England were not missing barrel loads of chances during the games they lost. If they had been then perhaps the Owen argument would hold some weight but they weren't. Likewise, Croatia may have missed Eduardo the other night but they didn't squander a stream of chances and their biggest deficincies were in the midfield and full back positions. I only saw Croatia play three or four times during qualifying so it is difficult for me to say whether they would have went through without Eduardo.

This argument about luck is futile. You are basically saying everything is down to luck. You could look at the draw and say England got a fairly easy group, that was lucky. Ultimately luck can only be used as an excuse for so long and you have to start looking at quality as a factor.

Michael Owen was not there to supply the runs that Goal scorers of his calbre make of the shoulders of Defenders , the man in possesion is looking to play a different strategy when he is hitting a different or lesser striker with different charcteristics

its commonsense IMO go take a look how many goals he scored in qualifiying then look at Michael Owen record for England a blindman would aknowledge it makes a helluva difference to both sides

im not saying everything is down to look at all im saying England played very poor but they were also very unlucky ,they are not there because they dont deserve to be but there are worse teams in the tournament and England could have added to the quality of the tournanment on that basis alone as aspose to devalue it with there pressense as was suggested

id seriously look at the quality of the side if England had the full strength team out on the pitch for the majority of the qualifying rather than having them on the treatment table for majority of the qualifying in the biggest games

i very much doubt Croatia would have qualified with the injuries we had let alone missing thier primary goal threat ,id hazzard a guess thier squad is thinnner than ours for quality aswell

maybe it is an exuse but it is not out of the realms of possibilty to suggest injuries played a massive part too ,IMO Togo would not have qualified for the World Cup without Adebayor or Croatia for the 2008 without Eduardo given that both players scored so many goals on rounte to qualification

im not convinced Croatia would beat Englands starting 11,Mclaren the idiot played 3-5-2 in the first game then he put Carson in Goal the 2nd game who proceeded to give them a goal ,we had 4 out 5 second string players in our back line and we were still leading at one point in the game a full strength England wins that game for me

England were very very poor dont get me wrong but they were very unlcuky with injuries and for me they would have qualified with a full strength squad available albiet they would still have played poorly to get to 2008

im not gonna change your opinion by the looks of things but thier is a lot more to my argument than excuses when u take Edds outta the Croatian team and see how poor they were as an attacking threat ,take away thier best 3 CB and u will see them fail to score goals and possibly conceeding more

To be fair Michael Owen hasn't looked anywhere near his best for a good 3/4 years.

I wonder how many of the England team would play if they didn't get paid for it.

To be fair Michael Owen hasn't looked anywhere near his best for a good 3/4 years.

I wonder how many of the England team would play if they didn't get paid for it.

take a look at the guys goals scoring record for England though

imagine taking Ronaldo and Vidic outta of the Man utd team and them not winning the league would it be an excuse to suggest that played a massive part in the outcome of the championship given how influential they are to the team

You build your own luck, we were ****e enough to let teams like Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Israel get results against us. Injuries don't come into we've got a big enough talent pool to pick players on paper that should beat these teams bar Russia.

You build your own luck, we were ****e enough to let teams like Russia, Croatia, Macedonia, Israel get results against us. Injuries don't come into we've got a big enough talent pool to pick players on paper that should beat these teams bar Russia.

bar Russia i think Croatia with Edds are a better side than Russia

we beat Russia 3 -0

and we were beating them 2 -0 in the 2nd game untill fat wazza decided to belly flop into the penalty area ,then Lescott leaves his runner i blame him for the goal not Robbo that shot was hit firmly enough for Robbo to have had to palm it away ,there was to much pace on the shot to palm it anywhere esle from what i saw, i could be wrong but i thought Lescott was at faulty for not reacting quicker rather than Robbo

ive just seen the video again and it looks like Robbo probably was more to blme than i thought but i still proportion the blame between him and Lescott when u se the replay from behind the goal u can see how slow Lescott is in reacting the shot was his very firmly aswell

i conceed England were very very poor and should have sealed thier fate with victorys over Israel & Maccedonia rather than relying on beating Croatia etc

I mean talent pool in terms of population and league status.
Premiership p4p best league out of all the countries in our group, after that it's Russia, then Croatia, Israel, Macedonia, Estonia and Andorra. Definitely on paper we had the best set of players to choose from, you could easily choose 2 teams of 11 different players that were still capable of beating any of those teams in my opinion, the players just didn't produce the goods.

I mean talent pool in terms of population and league status.
Premiership p4p best league out of all the countries in our group, after that it's Russia, then Croatia, Israel, Macedonia, Estonia and Andorra. Definitely on paper we had the best set of players to choose from, you could easily choose 2 teams of 11 different players that were still capable of beating any of those teams in my opinion, the players just didn't produce the goods.

I realise that i think the main point i was making was the full strength England side would have gotten thier but i accept we should have still been good enough with what we had

i dont think it comes down to lack of passion & desire though i think thier is to much preassure on the players ,the England shirt /expectation is weighing down on the players TBH they are playing with fear rather than expressing themselves

France are the new England