Internationals 11 February 2009

[Shaggy]

Spain bring on Reina, England bring on Robert Green.

Torres & Villa up front for them, Carlton Cole for England.

England will never, ever win anything while this generation of Spaniards are around.

[The Erectile Banana]

Spain bring on Reina, England bring on Robert Green.

Torres & Villa up front for them, Carlton Cole for England.

England will never, ever win anything while this generation of Spaniards are around.

England will never win anything in the near to medium term future. There are at least half a dozen teams besides Spain who are much better than them.

[Shaggy]

Totally agree.

[dww]

I don't think that a fully fit England team is that far away. This world cup is too soon but the Euros after if Capello stays we will have a chance IMO. There is a lot of decent talent there but they need to learn the important differences in international football and settle into some sort of pattern of play.

I think the latter is probably the most important factor as we have had talented teams in the past but lacked discipline and a workable game plan and done poorly. A lot of the fringe players really look to need more games at that level before they can be judged as the previous few England setups have been a bit shambolic and the senior players (barring Beckham actually) don't really set an example of what international football is about.

[Neil Young]

Guardian, The Knowledge
9 May 2007

"During any English newspaper feature of a top Italian side, the reporter will inevitably use, at some point, the Italian translation of their colours in italics (eg Rossoneri for Milan)," points out Dean Anderson. "Do the clubs themselves refer regularly to these nicknames or are the reporters just showing off? Do foreign match reporters reciprocate and refer to the Gunners or the Reds, for example?"

The answer to your first question is yes, Dean - Italian newspapers and indeed fans themselves regularly refer to Italian clubs by their colours, which have long been used as rather uninventive nicknames. Even the Italian national side is regularly referred to as gli Azzurri ("the Blues").

Your second question is a little less straightforward, not least because "foreign" is rather a broad area. We can tell you that Italian and French journalists normally operate the same way - referring to Manchester United, for example, as i Red Devils and les Red Devils, respectively. But both do also occasionally translate nicknames, normally with clubs they report on less often. Bolton, for instance, are sometimes know as les Vagabonds (a rough translation of 'Wanderers') in France.

The same is broadly true in Spain, but our man Sid Lowe reckons the nation's press has something of an obsession with translating English names generally. "They're always translating the names of the English royal family, so it's Principe Guillermo or Principe Carlo, instead of Prince William or Prince Charles," says Sid. "Most bizarre of all, though, they always refer to the English football side as los Pross, even though nobody has been able to explain why. It's definitely not a Spanish word, and everyone seems to think it's what the English call themselves. The best explanation I've heard is that it has come from 'pros', as in 'professionals'."

In Germany, original and translated nicknames are used fairly equally but with a few added peculiarities. "Both original and translated nicknames are used in Germany," admits our correspondent Raphael Honigstein. "But one very peculiar - and totally infuriating - national habit is adding an English team's city after its name - as in Arsenal London or Chelsea London. Even news agencies routinely do it, and a lot of people are convinced these sides really exist. Thankfully we have not seen Tottenham Hotspur London or Aston Villa Birmingham yet."

[The Erectile Banana]

I don't think that a fully fit England team is that far away. This world cup is too soon but the Euros after if Capello stays we will have a chance IMO. There is a lot of decent talent there but they need to learn the important differences in international football and settle into some sort of pattern of play.

I think the latter is probably the most important factor as we have had talented teams in the past but lacked discipline and a workable game plan and done poorly. A lot of the fringe players really look to need more games at that level before they can be judged as the previous few England setups have been a bit shambolic and the senior players (barring Beckham actually) don't really set an example of what international football is about.

From a neutral perspective I think that you've got an excellent coach and on paper an excellent defence (although I doubt John Terry's ability at international level). Your major problem is a lack of creativity and guile in midfield and your complete toothlessness upfront. Quiet how Ashley Young isn't in the team is beyond me as he has been by far the best English wide player for some time now. Your options upfront are paltry at best. You also have the problem that your best players - Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney - don't seem perform to the same level at international level as they do for their clubs and that managers persist in trying to crowbar Gerrard and Lampard into the same team when it obviously doesn't work.

I think the English expect too much of their team. They don't have a good record in international tournaments. Besides your victory on home soil you have only been to one other World Cup semi final. Your players are put under too much pressure (which they usually collapse under) by frenzied media coverage and fans who seem to think that thery are world beaters every time they put in a decent performance.

You have some decent players and a good manager but he's just a manager, not a miracle worker. England are a mid ranking international team and they're unlikely to be anything more anytime soon.

[dww]

From a neutral perspective I think that you've got an excellent coach and on paper an excellent defence (although I doubt John Terry's ability at international level). Your major problem is a lack of creativity and guile in midfield and your complete toothlessness upfront. Quiet how Ashley Young isn't in the team is beyond me as he has been by far the best English wide player for some time now. Your options upfront are paltry at best. You also have the problem that your best players - Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney - don't seem perform to the same level at international level as they do for their clubs and that managers persist in trying to crowbar Gerrard and Lampard into the same team when it obviously doesn't work.

I think the English expect too much of their team. They don't have a good record in international tournaments. Besides your victory on home soil you have only been to one other World Cup semi final. Your players are put under too much pressure (which they usually collapse under) by frenzied media coverage and fans who seem to think that thery are world beaters every time they put in a decent performance.

You have some decent players and a good manager but he's just a manager, not a miracle worker. England are a mid ranking international team and they're unlikely to be anything more anytime soon.

I'd agree that we have little up front but in recent years Portugal and Greece have had substantial success with a not dissimilar problem. I can see where Capello is coming from but we could at times do with an Owen like option.

I also agree that Young really should be getting a look in.

I also think that people under rate the potential of Agbonlahor. He has improved consistently and is now a top performer in the PL which is as tough as any league in the world.

There are obvious problems in that the lack of really top level technique and short passing skill is endemic in English players. It is so much easier to blend a team at international level when you have those skills underpinning what you do.

While I agree that there is almost no way to get Gerrard and Lampard into the same CM successfully at the highest level I do think that Gerrard in a more advanced role would be excellent for us.

The players unavailable for last night actually offer a lot of things that team lacked:
Hargreaves, Joe Cole, Gerrard, Walcott and Rooney are excellent players and would add a lot in teams of threat and in Hargreaves case composure on the ball that is too often missing in our international teams. The resources in terms of players are neither as bad as some make out or as good as sometimes the media (and the players themselves at times) think they are but they are comparable or better than most countries in most respects when everyone in contention is fit.

I'm not part of the England should be winning things mentality but I see no reason why in the next few years we are not regarded as a threat at major tournaments. I doubt we will be at the level of Spain who are by far the most cohesive unit in world football but then neither is anyone else.

[Neil Young]

I'd agree that we have little up front but in recent years Portugal and Greece have had substantial success with a not dissimilar problem. I can see where Capello is coming from but we could at times do with an Owen like option.

I also agree that Young really should be getting a look in.

I also think that people under rate the potential of Agbonlahor. He has improved consistently and is now a top performer in the PL which is as tough as any league in the world.

There are obvious problems in that the lack of really top level technique and short passing skill is endemic in English players. It is so much easier to blend a team at international level when you have those skills underpinning what you do.

While I agree that there is almost no way to get Gerrard and Lampard into the same CM successfully at the highest level I do think that Gerrard in a more advanced role would be excellent for us.

The players unavailable for last night actually offer a lot of things that team lacked:
Hargreaves, Joe Cole, Gerrard, Walcott and Rooney are excellent players and would add a lot in teams of threat and in Hargreaves case composure on the ball that is too often missing in our international teams. The resources in terms of players are neither as bad as some make out or as good as sometimes the media (and the players themselves at times) think they are but they are comparable or better than most countries in most respects when everyone in contention is fit.

I'm not part of the England should be winning things mentality but I see no reason why in the next few years we are not regarded as a threat at major tournaments. I doubt we will be at the level of Spain who are by far the most cohesive unit in world football but then neither is anyone else.

[DannyMan2006]

What a load of tosh written in this thread.

How anyone can write of England when they have the quality of players at their disposal is beyond me.

People should remember that they compete in cups, not leagues. Tournaments in the past have proved that not always the best or most highly fancied teams progress.

In 2006 Argentina were far and away the best team and would have walked away with it if it was a league title. To think South Korea got to the semis, and that Australia were knocked out by the winners with a dodgy pen. Not to mention Greece winning Euro 2004...........

Yes England are well known bottlers, but so are the most recent tournament winners, Italy and Spain.

I would put England in with a good chance, just like I would about 9 other teams. It all falls down to who gets lucky with form, injuries and performance on the day.