I was around at the time. Like everyone I basked in it as well, but where are we 46 years on and 10 attempts later?? How come even America as a minor footballing nation have had the world cup since and we can't have it until at least 2026? The only chance we'll ever have is to win it at home.

The reason I say it's a bad thing is because we haven't been able to follow it up but everyone seems to think, and wants to believe, we can.

do you mean hosting the world cup?

I dont understand what that has to do with us winning it or not being very good at it?

FIFA want to take the world cup to developing countries who need it, as we are not devoloping and could pretty much host it tomorrow they dont wanna give us it.

And blatter hates us, cos he's a nazi.

But none of that has anything to do with how shite we may have been in the UEFA european championships or the fact we won it millions of years ago.

Even if we hadn't won in 66 the expectation would be the same. It's our national sport and something which means alot to a very large number of people. Some will say rugby is bigger but football is the sport in this country that stops everything. It takes over simple as that. The pearl bar was heaving on sunday and I dare say alot of others were to. Would any other sport have that impact. Winning in 66 Definately isn't a bad thing, it's something we can all be very proud of

I do. I seriously think that if we're ever going to win either the Euro's or the World Cup we can only do it in England. We've never done it before or since 66 and surely that can't be a co-incidence??

By the way, I reckon China will get 2026.

Of course we should be proud of it. We just can't seem to put it behind us and live with the reality.

Of course we are living with the reality. Just read the posts in this thread alone.
We dont have players who are good enough to win a tournament, in 66 we did, everyone accepts that.
All we are at the moment is a tough team for good sides to beat, and it usually takes pennas to do it

OK Mr K, half do half don't. The title of the thread irked me a bit to be honest as the toys always seem to come out when we go out of a comp. I was saying if we'd never won would less people expect us to. Maybe. I dunno.

If we hadn't won in 1966 we'd have been recognized a long time ago as the average international side we really are. The English aren't the only ones who bang on about 66. Even French people I know who weren't born then keep bringing it up (usually to take the piss out of that being the last thing we ever won, although they're heading down the same road themselves).
Finishing in the last eight is, I would guess, an above average performance for England given all the finals we never even got to.

Still comparing with the French, coz it's easy for me, they far more pissed off than we are with their tournament. I haven't seen any English anywhere near as whinging as they are.

You could say the same about Uruguay

It's just the same thing Mr Monty apart from their success was more recent so they'll be even more vocal. That was some team when Zidane was in his pomp.

France always have a decent team just like holland... They always just seem to be 1 ego trip away from imploding

Yet we are still rated at 6 or 7 in the world rankings. We are not even 6 or 7 in the UK

Now you're just being stupid!!

Lemme see, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Channel islands, Guernsey, Falklands, British Antarctic Territory, Turks and Caicos...

We might even be 10th or 11th.

Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger, Fisher, German Bight, Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth, Biscay, Trafalgar, FitzRoy, Sole, Lundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea, Shannon, Rockall, Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Fair Isle, Faeroes, Southeast Iceland.

EEk!!

Could be worse than we think...........

Everybody knows the Dogger Bank team are not much cop, not sure about the rest like!

Are you sure the German Bight and the Irish Sea are in Britain? And isn't Trafalgar near Cadiz? I guess it's vaguely near Gib.
Phew, not quite as bad as we thought then.

Things are only getting better. According to the latest reports, England are now 4th in FIFA World rankings!!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... fas-941416

I've never seen Messi play as badly for Argentina as Rooney has at the last two competitions. In fact I don't remember watching Argentina and thinking Messi is playing poorly. He is consistently their best player even if he's not scoring (the obsession with goalscoring with him is silly considering how much more he has to his game), always involved and always creating from the deeper role. Last couple of years under decent management his stats are phenomenal too.

Rooney for England has been nothing short of atrocious in the last two competitions. Sluggish, awful first touch, rubbish decision making, not involved in games. In fact forget that has he honestly played well for England since Euro 2004? I don't think he has, and that is 8 years of international football since then.

Rooney might be a world class club performer but for England he's nothing more than average just like the rest of them. The only one that has ever done it for club and country is Cole.



Philipp Lahm, even if he's naturally a right footed right back has always been exceptional on the other side for club and country.

Lahm is a top class footballer who could probably do an excellent job in most midfield positions too. His distribution is better than anyone in the England team but he can tackle and control the ball too.

I still think Ashley Cole is a better left back as its his natural side, now cole on left and Lahm on right would be the start of a brilliant defence and I believe the best in the world, (not by the FIFA XI thought)

It's not just on here that I've read this, it is claimed as gospel by many for some reason. People say he can't do it without Xavi and Iniesta, but for Argentina he IS Xavi and Iniesta.

Remember one game at the Copa America last year where he must have literally put 7 or 8 chances on a plate for the two forwards they were playing, all his own work. For me you could half his goal output and he'd still be the best player in the world, such is the strength of his allround creative game.

"they' say the same about zlatan.

Gets a very unfair rep over here because of a few quiet CL performances.

Been on holiday and I was expecting to read a thread like this when I got back, an interesting one though.

You can't really 'blame' Hodgson for us exiting the tournament, given the very limited squad we have we did well to reach the Quarter Finals and remain unbeaten. Italy were embarrassingly superior to us at times on Sunday the final half an hour of normal time and most of extra time we barely had possession of the ball. You can't sight 'luck' when WE played for penalties as we weren't technically adept enough to keep the football and get into the final third. We stayed compact worked our bollocks off and put our bodies on the line. It was like watching a League One club earn an FA Cup replay against a Premiership team.

People are going on about Adam Johnson. What impact would he have made?? We didn't have the ball for most of the tournament. He'd have touched it as many times as Walcott did apart from the Sweden game. Had he made an impact with his two touches he got on the half way line he's a better player than anyone thinks he is! Had we had the likes of Scholes, Wilshere, and Joe Cole in the midfield area I reckon we'd had have more of a chance of actually worrying Italy, for differing reasons we didn't. Carrick as well might have seen us actually have the ball more, again he wasn't there. Four technically adept players, Scott Parker seems to get praise in the press for his performances. Yes he runs himself into the ground, yes he leaves everything on the field but look at Italy's deep lying midfielder and compare him to 'Scotty' a bloke called Andrea Pirlo..... There's the difference our deep lying midfielder runs about like a headless chicken wins a few tackles and passes the ball three yards sideways or backwards the Italian version dictates the pace of the game, has wonderful technical ability and vision. I said on here before the tournament started that Paul Scholes should have been begged by Hodgson in person to join the squad, I'm certain he'd have said yes. Interestingly Ray Wilkins has come out and said the same today.

As for our defence (about 9 of the team at times!) The only time we had an equal share of possession and tried to be a bit more attack minded we looked very dodgy and vulnerable every time Sweden attacked. The only reason Milner played every game was to assist the defensively flawed Johnson. We were compact as team, it's how we set up.

Onto Rooney, yes he was poor, and he hasn't delivered for England in the big games. As for the comparison to Messi who 'struggles' for Argentina. I'm sure he's scored two hat tricks in his last three internationals (one being against Brazil) It's just a lazy line people trot out which isn't even close to true. We've got nobody anywhere that class, or of the likes of Pirlo, Iniesta, Xavi, Muller, Khedria, Ronaldo or Schweinsteiger to name a few. Gerrard and Rooney are fine players, but typically and quintessentially English 'good' in terms of 100% effort and commitment, not technical class they don't make the game look easy like those players I mentioned. They play the game at a hundred miles an hour,

England are not crap, they are limited, and until something changes we need to accept that.