Dave Kean

Harry Redknapp was appointed by the media as the next England manager a couple of months ago, it seemed to be a done deal. Only someone forgot to mention this to the FA. They appointed Roy Hodgson to the post today.

Surprised? Yeah a little, but not nearly as surprised as the British press who gave a collective “No… Really? WTF…” today.

I’ve been thinking about this and while I don’t believe he’s the best manager around, he may be the best choice right now.

Perhaps it was in reaction to the disasters of Graham Taylor and Glen Hoddle, but since then England has tried to make big statements with their managers, and it’s not worked out too well.

Sven “Fox on the box” was a response to naive and nationally embarrassing passion of Keegan. Then once Sven was found out Steve McClaren was given the job because he was as far away from Sven as possible.

Capello came next and was hired because he was the best in the world. And how did the World cup in South Africa go in 2010?

Roy Hodgson has issues going into the job. Maybe biggest is that he’s never played at a high level and getting the respect of the players is going to be hard (re. Taylor and McClaren). But a little Wikipedia surfing says he’s the first ever England manager to have led a team to the World Cup or the European Championships. And that experience could be huge.

It’s not like Hodgson’s resume is empty. Ten league titles in Scandinavia and he took Inter and Fulham to the UEFA (Europa League) Final. Most relevant is his time managing Switzerland; he took them to both the 1994 World Cup and Euro 96.

If he can control the egos in the England camp, get the team playing together and working as a squad, rather than the collection of players we have seen so often on the international stage (and at Liverpool before King Kenny took over).

I think the biggest issue with English football is that homegrown players are simply not as skillful on the ball as those of the other big national sides. That comes down to the FA and the system they run. The level of technical coaching in England is inadequate, and until that base is in place, England will keep failing to live up to the hype.

With the glorious exception of Italia 90, I’ve spent a lifetime watching England teams get it wrong when they make it into the major tournaments. With the churn of the last six months getting out of the group stages would be an achievement at Euro2012. The manager is not the issue, they rarely are (looking at you Graham Taylor), but they are a convenient person to blame. Hodgson may not be the manager the team (or media) wants, but if he can get them to listen he may be the manager they need.
Tweet

Related articles

• Hodgson: The brave or safe choice for England? (itv.com)
• FA’s Hodgson choice gets Hoddle’s backing (espn.co.uk)
• Roy Hodgson Approached For England Job (news.sky.com)

I’ve watched a lot of football in the last couple of weeks on FSN and ESPN (along with Wimbledon and the Tour de France), see a couple of weeks off work have a bright side (and Tour de France every morning live!). While the big European leagues are in their off season there has been plenty of international games with the Woman’s World Cup (yes Karen, the Woman’s World Cup, how times have changed), the Under 21 and Under-17 World Cups, Gold Cup, Copa America along with a few MLS games.

A lot of interesting football played, some very impressive performances. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Woman’s team not too many of them have come from American teams. The 4-2 score in the Gold Cup final was somewhat flattering to the US, Mexico should really have had another couple.

The US Mens U-17 side lost to Uzbekistan and tied New Zealand 0-0 and the U-20 team never even made it to their World Cup loosing 2-1 to mighty Guatemala in the qualifying tournament earlier in the year. For a country that promotes it’s youth system as second to none these are very embarrassing failures and US Soccer president Sunil Gulati has to start by admitting there is s problem with the roots of the game.

The US has more elite level women than the rest of the world combined and needed other results to go their way in the final round of qualifying to get in.  It’s 12 years since they last appeared in the championship game (and that was at home) and this year the opening game saw a very unconvincing 2-0 win over North Korea. Since then it’s got better with the last two games having some very impressive team wide performances and produced entertaining football.

In the junior ranks the Womens U-20s were knocked out by Nigeria in the quarterfinals, the teams worst performance in the tournament ever. But still better than the U-17 who failed to qualify for their World cup.

The US Woman’s team should be good and are performing OK, but anything other than a final appearance would be considered a disappointment. Other than I think it’s fair to say there are issues through the system, the first step is to get US Soccer to admit it.

I think the youth system is in deep trouble, there is a tiny trickle of players coming through. And those that do make it are not technically proficient. Look at the MLS, it’s a physical league and this accurately reflects a youth system that puts athleticism above skill. Winning cups at the U12 and U14 level does nothing to promote great players; the strict grouping by age gives those that physically mature first a huge advantage in the youth game at the expense of the pure skill players.

The few true skill players that come through (Agudel, Adu, Dempsey) the MLS ranks are the exception rather than the rule. Look at players like Messi, Tevez or Arshavin and I wonder if they would have made it through the US Youth system. They are skill players, undersized and because of this may have not have made it with the current setup in the US playing against bigger, more physical players.

If a player is good enough with the ball they should be allowed to play at the best level they can, not be restricted to their age group and that’s it. If a player is skilful enough to play a year or two ahead let them, it can only aid the development of the skill players.

One thing the US youth system does do is preparing kids for the college game. Once again it’s a fast, bruising style of play is reflected in the MLS. Again we have the strict age limits (18-21) in addition to limited technical coaching, restrictions on practice time and some strange substitution rules in the college game it does not prepare players for the top level game.

Compare this to the Academy’s in Europe, there players are prepared to play the way the club demands from the beginning. If a kid is good enough to play the next level then they will be challenged. They get good technical training, access to great facilities and once they hit 16 no limits on training.

Ok, so I think there are issues in the roots of the game. The MLS reflects the system that supplies it, and unfortunately the US Men’s National Team does the same. I think it’s time from Bob Bradley to go, players don’t look motivated or interested, are struggling against teams they should beat and according to whispered rumours in the media he’s lost the team. He inherited a very proficient and well drilled squad from Bruce Arena. But there seems to have been no development since then, they play in the same physical way while the best CONCACAF (the real opposition, the teams they need to beat to be in Brazil 2014) teams have tactically moved forward with a more passing orientated game.

The USMNT still relies on out-dated route-1 football with Landon Donovan holding everything together. There are few MLS players in the starting 11, most of the squad are European based, coming off along year and having to fly to the US for midweek friendlies 6 or 7 times in the last year.

Why not have the camps in Europe during the season? Plenty of other countries do, for precisely this reason, most of their players are based there. It’s not exactly out the box thinking…

There is something worrying me, it’s been bugging me for a while. I tuned into the England Wales match last weekend, it was online on ESPN-3 and something rather worrying happened. I joined the game at half time and after about 10 or 15 minutes I switched it off to go clean up the garden.

Last night I totally forgot England were playing Ghana. It was not until someone at work mentioned it this morning that I remembered and it was longer still before I went to the BBC website to look for the result.

It’s not that I’m growing tired of the game. I’m still looking forward to watching Seattle play Saturday night in the pub and planning work trips around home dates (and around a couple of away games).

If it’s not the game itself, and I feel pretty safe saying that I love the game as much as ever, I think its England. Last summer I was a true believer, England had a chance, England could do it this time. I had the World cup Wall chart up, my office was adorned with a couple of crosses of St George and I had Three-Lions on my iPod. I was ready, I was a true believer.

Then it all went wrong, just before half time in their opening game. Rob Green (and it’s easy to point fingers, but it’s true) fumbles the ball and it was 1-1. I was in a pub in Redmond and there was silence from the ex-pat two-thirds of the room.

My thoughts at the time were along the lines of “there is plenty of time”, “it’s only the opening game”, “not loosing is far more important than winning”, “the USA are a good side”. You get the idea, but deep down a little piece of me thought “here we go again”.

Every couple of years I buy into the hype, I believed that this time it will be different.

And it never is.

It’s a special ability England has to disappoint when it matters. It does not matter somehow they find a way. Waddle blasting a penalty into the stands, Maradona’s “hand of god” or Green letting the ball bobble into the net.

There is a certain inevitability that some how England will fail to deliver. I can handle a great performance where England is beaten by an even greater team. It’s the 0-0 draws with Algeria that piss me off. Last summer Algeria did not play a stunning game of football, it’s that England were crap on the day.

I don’t want my England to just get through to the second round of a tournament with two draws and a dodgy 1-0 win in the final group game, I want them to do it in style. I want them to go through with conviction and mow down all those put in front of them.

I can tell you which bar or living room I was in for so many of the big games over the last 25 years or so, certainly back to the World cup in Mexico. I’ve missed meetings, taken sick days, vacation and skipped school to be there for a big England game, a dedication I’ve never shown Coventry City or the Seattle Sounders.

Reality is that England today is not a particularly good side; when I dig deep I really don’t believe they are good enough to win Euro 2012. I care, but I’m not going to live and die with them for now, it may come back, but this may be the new state of mind.

I was discussing this today with another one of the expats. I was worried, was my lack of loyalty caused by being away from home for too long?  Pete said no, its OK to like England a little less. He understands and pointed out what they have put us through for the last 40 years.

He’s right, there is something especially English about being a little cynical and bitter about the team. Pessimism is almost the national state of mind, and it’s OK to apply that to England today.

There are a few things that have become clear from watching England in the Cricket World Cup.

First, there is still some life left in the 50-Over format of the game. As much fun as the Twenty-20 slugfest can be to watch, the longer one-day game can produce drama and intrigue not present in the shortest version. Also looking at the runs being scored in this world cup, the shorter games influence is clear to see.

Secondly, the most interesting team in this tournament is England. They are not playing the best cricket and seem to be missing some flair and depth. This was especially evident in the very poor showings against Holland and Ireland (still possibly the biggest shock in the history of this tournament). But England provides drama and compelling cricket by the bucket load.

Following the tradition of England teams in big tournaments the game against South Africa was a “must win”.

Coming off the loss to Ireland (there is no excuse, England were just woeful) they had to win against about a very good South Africa, nothing less would keep them in the tournament and get them out of the group stage into the knock out.

In the game against India on Wednesday we saw a couple of truly great individual performances. The story against South Africa was that of a team effort.

England batted first and after a run of 300+ scores in this tournament the England score of 171 all out (45.4 overs) looked very beatable, but the deteriorating wicket was making it difficult for the batsmen.

Strauss, Bell, KP and Michael Yardy were all out for single figures. The captain Strauss described some of the English batting as “criminal”, he was not wrong. But somehow this was enough. Ravi Bopara was in for he slightly out of form Paul Collingwood, had the best performance, hit a very controlled 60 and won the man of the match award.

There were times that the game seemed to be all but over for England, after 32 overs South Africa seems to be cruising along nicely at 124 for 3, then the tide turned and they fell to 127 for 7 and England saw the chance to take this one. The English bowlers found something else in the pitch and took the games to South Africa, Stuart Broad had a devastating spell and ended up with a very impressive 4 wickets for only 15 runs in 6.4 overs.

South Africa made 165 all out and handed England an unlikely victory. The next game is against Bangladesh in Chittagong on Friday, a win there guarantees a place in the last 8.

There is nothing better for morale than snatching an unlikely victory, especially coming off the humiliation against Ireland mid week. England did enough and there were times their bowling was really good, but I think they know that 171 should not have been enough to win this.

On the bright side, Strauss and his team have shown they can raise their game to the level of the good teams after a victory over South Africa and the thrilling draw with India. They needed a little luck and found it this morning. I’m not sure they deserve to be, but they are still in this thing.

There is something surreal about watching cricket being played 14 time zones away from Seattle, but it’s been drama filled, and that is one of things I want from my sport.

This weekend there was lots of great sport on TV. BBC America had England against France from Twickenham in the Six-nations championship, this was a great game and a wonderful advert for rugby. Both sides played flowing rugby and while there was only one try, it was a game that could have gone either way.

Then there was Liverpool getting beat by West Ham (on any given day…), Manchester United hammering Wigan and of course Arsenal getting beat by an inspired Birmingham City performance.

But there was one that stood above all others, and I get that I’m in a minority here.

I purchased the Willow TV package for the cricket world cup, I’m not going to get a chance to watch many of the games live, but I did watch the England-India game Sunday morning from Bangalore and it was worth every penny. England looked very ordinary against Holland last week and did what good teams do on their off days, Just about enough to win, but it was unconvincing at best.

Ultimately the England India game was not an incredibly important game, both sides should progress to the second round with out too much trouble. However, if you don’t watch or follow cricket you may as well move on now, it’s going to get a little “masturbatory fanboy” here, deal with it.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this may have been one of the best limited over games ever, not just in the World Cup. This game went back and forth, either side could have won comfortably. The England captain said “These are the kinds of occasions cricketers dream about”. Although I think when he imagines this while laying in bed he does see a slightly different ending.

On one side you had an England team led by Andrew Strauss, on the other India captained by the legend Sakin Tendulkar. These were two great teams who had a little form coming into this and this looked to have the makings of a good game on paper.

When someone gets round to making a cliff hanger movie about Cricket, this game will mirror the way that story will unfold. The captains were at the center of things, each played a wonderful innings and led the twists and turns of what was a remarkable game. In 30 years of following and watching this game I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

England did not do well in the recent one-day series against Australia, but that was something of an afterthought to the Ashes victory every Englishman (and at least one Scot I know) cared about. However they played good consistent cricket over the winter and looked about as settled an England team as any I’ve seen. They have the players and in Andy Flower the manager that has worked out how to get best out of this team.

Arguably India is the best one-day side in the world at the moment, and as hosts for this world cup clearly the favorites to lift the trophy.

India batted first and it seemed to be about Tendulkar, he did what senior players are supposed to do in the one day game and led by example. He scored 120 off 115 balls, with 15 boundaries. This was the innings all of India knew he could play and if he keeps up this form for the next three weeks India may just be unbeatable.

The ball was hit all over the ground on what was a totally benign, flat wicket that made great bowlers look very ordinary, there was no movement in it. And India duly put together a huge total for England to chase, and chase they did. The experiment of Strauss opening the England batting seemed to come good, he scored 158 off 145 balls to lead the chase.

After 99.5 overs of enthralling cricket it came down to the final ball. England needed two off the final ball to win, nothing and India collects the three points. England of course did the sporting thing and only got one.

Eight hours, two magnificent batting displays and it was a 338 to 338 draw. It was not just the result that was remarkable, it was the twists and turns over the proceeding 100 overs that made it so enthralling.

This was not just cricket at it’s best, this was sport at it’s finest.

The final is tomorrow morning Pacific time, neither Spain or Holland have ever won the tournament. Holland has been close as defeated finalists twice under Cruyff. A lot of new ground has been broken over the last four weeks, most notably the success of the first tournament in Africa, it seems fitting that it will end with a new name will be added to the cup.

Two weeks ago I was questioning the football played by the Europeans and what was wrong when compared to the South American sides. To be clear, Italy, France and England brought little to the party. Spain is the reigning European champions, I was wrong to lump them in with the underperforming and ill disciplined.

Holland are unbeaten in South Africa, taking into account warm up and qualifying it’s now 25 games since they lost, there was plenty of evidence that they were going to be tough to beat.

Over all we have no cause for complaint, the 2010 World Cup in Africa has been eventful. Coming out of the group stages Argentina and Brazil both played good football. Brazil especially had a little flair and performed in the way you expect Brazil to perform in the World Cup – impressively. Holland made short work of Brazil in the quarterfinal, 1:0 down at half time; the Dutch dominated the second half in a very controlled, but physically forceful way.

If the Dutch play the same way against Spain, they should win. This is not total football and this team will not be mistaken for the team of the 70’s but they can still play. They know how to come from behind and knowing they have defeated Brazil and Germany to get here can only add the confidence coming into the game,

Unlike Holland, Spain have lost in this tournament 1-0 to Switzerland in their opening game, it was he only game that the opposition scored first and Spain were never able to get back into it.

Spain have had a little of a struggle to finish their chances, only 7 goals so far in the tournament. All the wins during the knock out stage have been 1-0. The poor form of Fernando Torres has not made Spain’s scoring problem easier. Having said that Spain have only conceded two goals, and are very good at hanging onto slim leads, the defensive discipline has been good, especially during the semi-final against Germany when they shut down the German midfield very effectively.

Holland has scored freely, 12 goals in 6 games (against 5 conceded). However it does not matter how disciplined you are when you have layers like van Bronckhorst who opened the scoring against Uruguay with the goal of the tournament.

It has the makings of a fitting final for what has been a very good tournament. In the knock out stages Spain has not been seriously troubled, you get the feeling they are playing within themselves, that there is another level to their play that’s not been required yet. If Holland can play to their best, if Robbins, van Bronckhorst, van Persie and co play to their ability Spain may have to raise their level to win this thing. A World Cup final deserves that.

My feeling, Spain at their best should be too much for Holland, but Spain have not been at their best yet, but it’s also not been required. It’s the potential to be a very fitting final to a good tournament.

Sunday afternoon England take on Germany. A game with so much history, a lot of bad blood and what most English people consider one of the classic match ups along with the auld enemy and Argentina.

Last competitive game the two sides played was in 2001 and the almost legendary 5-1 English win in Munich. The rivalry has a long history going back to 1930, but it never really got going until 1966. On a July afternoon at Wembley an Azerbijani linesman said Geoff Hurst’s shot had cannoned off the crossbar and crossed the goal line, and that was all that mattered.

And England won the World Cup. The Germans (of course) didn’t agree with the linesmen, and to this day feel they were cheated out of the World Cup.

On a slight aside (shinny thing…) the linesman was Tofik Bakhramov and the Azerbaijan national stadium in Baku is named after him. Such is his place in English football legend that when England played a World Cup qualifier there in 2004, England fans visited his grave to pay respects and place flowers on it. Prior to the game there was a ceremony honouring him that was attended by some members of the 1966 team, including Hurst.

Back to Sunday, since 1966 the two sides have met 19 times. Germany have won 12 times, 4 draws and only 5 English wins. Only one of those English wins came in a major tournament,  1-0 win in Charleroi in a very poor game against a bad Germany side during Euro 2000.

The two Semi-final losses in Italia 90 and Euro ’96 live very large in the British psyche. Both were decent games that led to losses on penalties, and all English fans feel it’s time for revenge.

The only question is which pub should I watch the game in?

Last Saturday lunchtime Englishmen all over North America pulled on the three lions, went to the bar, sang Go Save the Queen and expected England to do the business over the hosts.

The Three Lions pub in Redmond was full to brimming, there were hundreds at the George and Dragon in Fremont and the story was repeated all over Seattle and North America.

Here is the basics, England invented football. Americans don’t like football, they don’t even call it football, they use the “S” word. In Seattle football competes with baseball and a game called football.

Us English, on the other hand, live and die the game, it’s important and we see the three lions as an extension of who we are. The whole idea of being beaten at ‘our’ game by the Americans is just about the greatest shame I can imagine. It’s not only the result on the field; it’s the ribbing at work and the piss taking from friends. It would be bad.

In 2010 it’s no longer true to say football is a game that does not interest Americans, it does. Also it’s a game that the Americans are rather good at, Landon Donovan may be the first world class player to come out of the US youth system, and its got the potential to be a rich source of good players.

The MLS Championship game does not hold the appeal of the World Series (named because it was originally sponsored by the ‘The World’ newspaper) or the Super Bowl. But last year in Seattle there was 45,000 knowledgeable fans there for the game.

Love of the game

In 1994 the US hosted the World Cup (England did not make it, look for “Graham Taylor impossible job” on youtube, it’s worth it) in 1996 the US launched Major League Soccer (MLS) as the top-level league in the US. MLS had some slightly rocky times in the first few years, but seems to be doing OK now. There are 16 teams, and over the next two years adds three more. There are quite a few “soccer specific stadiums” and the league as a whole (led by Seattle, LA and Toronto) should make a small profit this year or next. Something way beyond the premier league.

The average attendance for MLS is approaching 20,000, similar to the Coca-cola championship. Seattle play to 36,000 every game, Toronto sell out 22,000 each home game and are looking to expand their stadium.

The youth system is huge, for kids football is the number 1 participation sport in the USA. Having been part of the set up in Washington State as a coach, it’s well organized with a lot of good coaches for the kids that are good enough. It is aimed at preparing kids for college; there is no real club academy system for the elite kids. The truth is last Saturday’s game was not just about Robert Green’s mistake. England had the entire second half to score another goal and could not do so.

And the United States were well worth the draw.

Just before the disastrous US run at World Cup in 1998 (and before the failure of the US team to beat Iran) the US Soccer Federation unveiled “Project 2010″. A 12 year, $50 million project to pave the way for the US to win the World Cup in 2010. I do think the US should qualify for the finals every time. Looking at CONCACAF it should be US, Mexico (the only real rival for the US team in the confederation) plus one or two of whichever of the other Central American or Caribbean teams are having a good run of form. Four years ago it was Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, this time it’s Honduras that gets a trip to the finals.

This does lead to the US having a somewhat inflated FIFA ranking and I get that me saying the “US should qualify… every time” is a bold statement, but with the resources they have to pull from and the opposition in CONCACAF there would be no excure for not making the finals every time. 16 years ago it was different and qualification was not a sure thing, and now it’s expected and that’s progress.

When “Project 2010″ was started consistent qualification was about where the US team was at, but today there seems little ambition beyond that. The US has a few outfield players consistently playing their club football in Europe. Landon Donovan is the best player to emerge from the US youth system, a good player who did well at Everton. He has direct style that works well in the MLS and suits the Premier League OK, but I think he would be found technically wanting in Italy or Spain.

The remains of “Project 2010″ carry on today as the “Generation Adidas” program. Generation Adidas is a venture between MLS and USSF and has been very successful in identifying and helping younger players prepare for playing professionally.

The first generation of players coming though the revamped system (led by Beasley and Donovan) made it to the last 8 in the 2002 World Cup, before loosing out to a good German side. This showed a lot of progress in a just 8 years, from happy to be there, to giving an established side a good run in the knock out phase.

So with all of this in place and a couple of generations of players coming through the revamped system, is just qualifying for the World cup every four years enough? If fans expect more than just being there, then the question becomes why does the US struggle against well drilled sides?

Clearly on the day the US can beat anyone, but the flip side of this, they can be beaten by anyone on their day. And that’s a problem.

We are five days into the World Cup, I’ve watched about half the game fully and highlights or radio commentary of most of the rest. The football has been largely Ok ,but no better. Teams seem more worried about loosing their first game and have played very safe, negative style. Not loosing the first game being more important than winning.

Of the big teams Italy, France, England and Portugal have been OK to disappointing at best.

Germany were outstanding, unquestionably the best side so far. OK it was a poor Australian side that looked a step or two off the pace, but Germany did what good teams should do and comprehensively beat them.

Something Brazil failed to do today against a well drilled, but ultimately inexperienced North Korea team. Korea set out to hold Brazil back, and they did the job worrying well if you follow Brazil.

Argentina and the Netherlands have both played positive football and I look forward to seeing both these teams play again to see how good they may be.

Spain is the last of the fancied teams to start play. They take on Switzerland tomorrow (Wednesday) in Durban.

It’s nothing like 1990, which was an atrociously defensive tournament, Argentina in particular played only negative football in Italy, and it was enough to take them to the final. They were primarily concerned (like Italy and a few others) with giving nothing away. Hope to get something on the break and be prepared to settle for penalties if it came to that.

After Italia ’90 FIFA started trying to open the game up. They tinkered with the offside rule, gave a certain amount of benefit to attackers, differentiated between “active” and “passive” players and gave the attacker the benefit of the doubt a little more. To some extent this approach worked, the World cup in ’94 and Euro ’96 were far better examples of better tournaments with a lot more good football.

North Korea

It may be easier (once again see North Korea today) to build a defensive team rather than a team that’s capable of going out and winning a game at the top level. Another example would be Inter successfully working for 90 minutes to keep Barcelona penned up to win the European Cup.

As teams start needing the points in the second and third round of group games over the next 10 days, it should open up a little and we should have a better idea of who really sits where.

But today, Germany look like the team to beat, and the runner up in Group C (England’s group) will probably be first to have a go at them in the knock out stage.

Time for my glass half full moment. Yesterdays game has certainly been on my mind and the result was disappointing for England, but no more than that.

The peerless British sports pages (and I mean that as a complement, mostly) have a couple of takes on this. First, it’s an error, an important game costing error, but just an error none the less and everything will be fine. The second and rather more reactionary story is that this was proof that England are not the world beaters they have been hyped up (by the same hacks, BTW) to be.

Time to look back in history. In 1966 (of course, it always comes back to 1966) England opened with a draw against Uruguay. Ultimately England triumphed and took possession of Jules Rimet for four years.

Then there was Italy in Espana 92. During the group stage Italy drew their three group matches. This was no group-of-death, the opposition was Poland, Peru and Cameroon. In the knockout stage they came alive as they sweep aside Argentina, Brazil and finally taking out West Germany 3-1 to lift the trophy.

To be fair that Italy side was full of world class quality, starting with Dino Zoff between the sticks, top scorer Paolo Rossi, Giuseppe Bergomi, Marco Tardelli and maybe the best sweeper ever in Gaetano Scirea (yes, I think better than Cruyff and Beckenbauer).

I admit that no matter how hard you squint at the team sheet, the England team does not have that depth of talent, but there is plenty of bright side there.

To even up the “they can still do it, look at Italy” optimism, the last six winners of the World Cup have all started the tournament with a win in their opening game…

I still believe, I still believe that England have the ability to win this. They really do need things to start going their way and after loosing Ledley King with a groin strain (on top of the Rio Ferdinand injury), JT passes that went out for throw ins and Rob Greens blunder I hope they have used up all their bad luck. Next game sees the return of Gareth Barry, this should give the side a new look going forward. We will find out more Friday, after drawing with the Americans we need to start thinking about goal difference, winning the group makes life a lot easier once we get to the knock out stages.

By the way, didn’t the Germans looked good today?