Eh, what's the difference anyways? Forwards play where they wantThen apologies to @TwoSheds
I'm also a bit disappointed.Made sense to me if it was as an alternative look to the 4-2-2-2 box you were talking about, with tactical shifts to 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 but not Foden, Saka and Bellingham as candidates for one or both of the front 2 positions. I'd have thought they'd all be better operating in the attacking midfield line.
England Golden Generation myth.
- Thread starter Lebo
- Start date
which golden generation is he in?
He's not. Alcaraz and Sinner are the new golden generation though
Edit: damn these new emojis are trash
What do we call the 1966 side? The platinum generation?
World cup winners.
A lot of love for Bellingham by some, but if you were after a CM/AM, I’d think Charlton might have at least a shout?
You only have to look at the current defenders....enough said
No doubt. What a shame England have been so poorly managed the last 30 years, which continues to this very day. Not sure about the 70s and 80s though.
Bellingham has absolutely nothing in his game to warrant such hype.
Truth is back then, the England players were over rated, are currently over rated and will be over rated in the future. The lack of technique compared to continental rivals will always mean failures in the big competitions.
Well yeah but no, but yeah. I don't know mate, I don't exactly regard myself as knowledgeable on tactics.
Kane and Rooney obviously like to drop deep anyway, and the front 2 in a 4-2-2-2 are going push wide themselves at times to try and make up for what is on paper a lack of natural width in that formation.
Still, I think the most of the time coaches who have deployed the 4-2-2-2 box like to have proven actual strikers in the front 2 with the goalscoring threat that they bring plus their ability to lead the line when needed, hold up the ball etc. Not necessarily for both players up there but at least one of them, I don't know.
I suppose I see the front 2 as more of a specialist role than you might in such a formation, it looks like you'd have the front 4 interchanging much more often than me who would be more structured or rigid. I'd look at that and say I want my AM line to be players who are mostly known for creativity, joining in from deep, and/or pushing wide themselves, the top 2 with some of that but more of a focus of what they can bring with regards to those traditional striker roles both in the build up and scoring goals.
You're way more flexible than I am, and perhaps "cuter" too, implemeting a lot more rotation and what would be false strikers in a sense.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but your argument for the lack of a better word is silly. Bellingham of all people lacking technique? Preposterous.
I don't want to enter a pointless discussion so I'll leave with a lapidary thought. Does the Real Madrid in 2024 start 20 year old midfielders for hype or lacking technique? I don't think so. And neither should you.
Agreed on both tournaments. It's not often that England have looked like a proper team able to take the game to other top sides - 1990, 1996 and 2004 in the last 40 years. And they were dynamic and positive at Euro 2004. Less so in 2006 for the reasons you outline, even though the XI was still stacked on paper. There were useful options that should have been taken to inject pace into the attack.
That 'golden generation' of the mid to late 2000s won two Knockout games in major tournaments.
The England team of 2018 - 2021 was ultimately a better squad than the one of 2002 - 2006.
Pickford is a better keeper than James for one example. Ramsdale is also better than Robinson.
Terry and Ferdinand were better centre backs but Stones and arguably Maguire were better than Carragher and King. Campbell was way past his best by 2006.
Lampard and Gerrard were clearly both world class on their day in the mid 2000s but never worked well together. Carrick was not yet at the level he would develop into at OT. Hargreaves was never really utilised correctly by England. Rice and Bellingham would have probably complimented Gerrard/Lampard quite well. Scholes had retired from international football in 2004.
By 2006, Beckham had probably dropped a level and wasn't quite the same level as he was during his 1998 - 2002 peak.
A fully fit Saka from 2021 - 2024 walks into that 2006 World Cup squad.
Up front, prime Kane walks into any England squad of the last 30 years. Rooney was rushed back too quickly in 2006 but a prime version of him gets into the current squad easily.
I don't think so, not all round.
I think England have a better goalkeeer, better defenders to choose from, better striker and a potentially very solid midfield from both a defensive and attacking perspective.
Whereas i think Portugal is depending a lot on their midfield to compensate for defense and potentially having Ronaldo up front, not to mention Martinez as their manager.
Also our lack of intelligent players who know how to use the ball well.
I think the quality, balance and flexibility of this current team is much better than the 00’s and also the relative quality versus other teams too as shown by the fact we’ve reached a semi and a final and went out to the eventual runners up in the last world cup
There’ll always be the lingering issue of fitting in the right players in the right system and always be lingering feelings that Southgate isn’t good enough but his record is excellent for an England manager really even if ultimately we haven’t won anything.
We are stacked throughout the squad whereas the late 90’s/00’s team was dogshit on the bench compared to the starting XI and it was badly mismanaged and picked on name and reputation rather than squad balance whilst married to rigid 4-4-2.
There’ll always be the lingering issue of fitting in the right players in the right system and always be lingering feelings that Southgate isn’t good enough but his record is excellent for an England manager really even if ultimately we haven’t won anything.
We are stacked throughout the squad whereas the late 90’s/00’s team was dogshit on the bench compared to the starting XI and it was badly mismanaged and picked on name and reputation rather than squad balance whilst married to rigid 4-4-2.
I don't think England had unquestionably the best side on paper in 06, did they? Maybe they did but there were a lot of very strong teams in that world cup.
I think you definitely have the best squad for this Euros though, so it'll be interesting to see if you can actually deliver on it.
I think you definitely have the best squad for this Euros though, so it'll be interesting to see if you can actually deliver on it.
France looks pretty good!
He is a starter because of his Lampadesque goals. Very average otherwise when I've seen him and this includes the games in which he scored. And this Real Madrid team did not exactly play opponents off the park; they fluked it (typically) to the champions league title.
Anyway, the technique part is relative to the continental counterparts and applies to most England players current and past including the overhyped Bellingham.
Last edited:
This group are (rightly) getting lots of hype and excitement because we have one of the best squads in the tournament.
This all set against the fact fewer countries have great squads than those the previous golden generation played against.
There just aren’t as many great players anymore. Far more tactically better players with better technique, but many are quite samey. Athletic players that are all tidy with good ball retention. That’s about it.
This all set against the fact fewer countries have great squads than those the previous golden generation played against.
There just aren’t as many great players anymore. Far more tactically better players with better technique, but many are quite samey. Athletic players that are all tidy with good ball retention. That’s about it.
I tend to agree. Some of the criticism levelled at Southgate, 'Why haven't you won these trophies with this team, etc?', slightly exaggerates the talent pool England have at their disposal and doesn't do justice to some other teams around, who are more or less at the same level as England. Yes, they have good players, but when you think back to teams that had Ashley Cole, Sol Campbell, Gary Neville, John Terry, and Rio Ferdinand, the backline looks very weak by comparison to some England sides that probably weren't as fancied. Looking at the current crop, John Stones is the only player who I would instantly pick, even though Branthwaite will probably come through in a few years, he has not been selected.
The sense of optimism is probably inflated by the options England have in attacking positions, but defensively they just do not inspire confidence and I would honestly prefer a player like Matthew Upson to Lewis Dunk. As far as full backs go, a fit Luke Shaw is international quality, but he is probably not going to feature. Whoever deputises there is not a patch on Ashley Cole.
Also, England don't have the same threat from set pieces as when David Beckham was playing and there's sometimes a lack of natural width in the side.
England have definitely improved in terms of their ball skills and ball retention but that was always weakness against more technical sides, so improving in that respect probably only brings parity with most sides and is still inferior to the Spaniards and Italians.
The sense of optimism is probably inflated by the options England have in attacking positions, but defensively they just do not inspire confidence and I would honestly prefer a player like Matthew Upson to Lewis Dunk. As far as full backs go, a fit Luke Shaw is international quality, but he is probably not going to feature. Whoever deputises there is not a patch on Ashley Cole.
Also, England don't have the same threat from set pieces as when David Beckham was playing and there's sometimes a lack of natural width in the side.
England have definitely improved in terms of their ball skills and ball retention but that was always weakness against more technical sides, so improving in that respect probably only brings parity with most sides and is still inferior to the Spaniards and Italians.
Last edited:
The Goldbridge generation
but do they really? Think back to 2004 and Germany were crap, Spain was so-so, Italy was great on paper but ended up not even getting out of a group with Sweden and Denmark
You had Portugal, France, Netherlands as great teams, on paper, plus Italy. Nowadays you have France, Germany, Portugal as great teams on paper, plus Spain
2008 again, which great teams were there? Spain, Netherlands maybe? Germany were good but not really anything people would think of as great either.
2012?
Fair points. But do many other teams have better players? Portugal will start with a 41 year old Pepe and their second favourites with us.
Pickford is one of the best keepers at the tournament. Stones and Walker get in almost all sides that are turning up. Shaw too if he’s firing fit, though I accept that he’s not.
I don’t think any of those get in previous England teams. But they still get in most other teams* in the tournament and that’s who we have to beat.
*If not every team then certainly every squad.
Yeah absolutely. You could go back to previous tournaments and look at many top teams and think that their starting team had players that we’d want to start for us.
Not that every squad was stacked. But every top team had a load of top players. We were strong defensively but weaker in forward positions.
I think the golden generation would wipe the floor with the current lot, if they got their act together and didn’t let club politics get in the way.
Now you are strong in attack and weak in defence? You can't go through most top teams and find players you'd want starting for England? You wouldn't want Neuer, Rudiger, Kroos or Gundogan starting for England? You wouldn't want Rodri starting for England? Mbappé, Saliba, Theo, Maignan, Jorginho(the guy who played real well next to Rice at club level), Bastoni, Donnarumma, Vitinha, Dias, Brozovic, Calhanoglu, De Jong, Van Dijk, starting for England?
Sorry, I made my point poorly. I meant that for every team in the tournament bar France, you’d probably make a case for 6-7 England players over any Nation you pick.
Plenty of teams have 1-4 players that would walk into our team. But a quick finger in the air poll of ‘Would we have 6 players out of 11’ is a solid reckoner for how good our team and squad is.
We’ve also got more strength in depth with regards to game changers off the bench.
I’m normally lukewarm on England. For once, we have a really good squad and team that’s better than most.
My point is if you look at the squads from 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010, it would't be much different. It feels like that now, but at the time England did absolutely have one of the most stacked squads around. It just wasn't ever the best and had some fatal flaws(same as now)
Yes, I agree this squad is overall stronger than most, better than the "golden generation" compared to their rivals. I disagree that it's because the field is weaker now. It's not particularly so, this England team is just better(maybe not in an ideal starting XI, but overall absolutely. This team isn't one injury to one player away from going from favourite to also ran)
Yes and no. We had a truly incredible squad that had more world Class players. But they all existed within different systems.
Liverpool players played a different system to United players, Chelsea were different too. Arsenal a departure. All those teams had a different tactical ethos, defended the pitch differently, defended set pieces differently. The squad had egos in goal, defence, midfield and attack. Plus the squad was a series of cliques.
Now?… Most players play for a largely homogenised style of football. Retain the ball, press, rest to start positions in attack and defence, keepers and 6’s playing as ball players as centre halves split, wingers that pull inside.
We don’t have the likes of Ashley Cole needing a Pires or Henry to unlock his attacking threat. Or a Lampard needing a Drogba to hold the ball to allow him space to attack from the edge of the box. Or Neville and Beckham operating best as a pair and not delivering as much without a specific player ‘alongside’ them. Or a Gerrard that needs several other players to just react to his mental scattergun approach to 90 minutes. Or a brand of maverick like Owen or Rooney that influence games from a CF position in entirely different ways.
We have a whole squad of round pegs for round holes. The position doesn’t change really no matter who is picked.
The previous generation was talented. But not cohesive. Plus, other squads really were.
Now, we are talented AND cohesive. Our lack of established partnerships will probably see us finish 3rd or 4th. But we have a real chance to go all the way.
It is a really good point, although I would say that there were clear similarities in the mid-2000s in the way most of the top English clubs played, especially in Europe. By that point, Liverpool, United and Chelsea were all playing variations of 4-3-3 / 4-5-1. In Europe they were all playing fairly similar contain-and-counter football, especially by later in the decade. I do think England missed a trick not deploying the same principles and shape as clearly it was one that got the best out of Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney. But, as you say, there was a balance issue - England didn't really have a Drogba or Makelele to free up others to do what they did best.