Euro 2008 — Running Thread

Those big names have done plenty in professional leagues. I'd take Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney, Aaron Lennon, Frank Lampard, Joe and Ashley Cole, John Terry, et al, if I were starting a team right now. You're correct that they've largely failed on an international stage. But that doesn't take away from their actual talent.

They do have the talent of Germany, Argentina and Holland, at least. Possibly even France. Brazil, Italy and Portugal are the only teams I'd say are markedly better at this point, strictly in terms of talent.

 

The trouble is they're fixated on that talent. They're insistent on taking the 11 best players and trying to form some kind of all-star team, rather than slotting the right players into the right places in the right formation.

 

Then why are you arguing that I've undervalued their pedigree? They've not capitalized on what they have, especially recently.

 

Because despite all that, they've still accomplished more on the international stage than any of the ones you're citing. The quarterfinals may be disappointing, but they're still the quarterfinals, and they've still made them at the previous two World Cups. That's still more than Portugal, Spain or Holland have managed. And they've still won more World Cups than all three of those put together.

 

Then by that same argument, Nebraska is a better football school than Texas or Florida. More championships, after all.

You're overvaluing England's history.

 

That England's best players talent hasn't so far translated to international play says something about their talent.

Yes, some like Gerrard and Lampard have done well in European club play. But don't think enough English players have the same technical ability as their Spanish, German or Italian counterparts.

As for the history, 'tis surely better to have won once than never at all.

 

This will likely be laughed upon, but I would probably consider Mexico over England, and I hate Mexico like nobody else.

Advanced past group stages in last four World Cups, and they have advanced in their last five appearances. In five of the last six Copas, Mexico has been in the semis and Mexico has finished second twice. Four CONCACAF titles since 1993 and a Confederations title.

Pretty consistent for Mexico, which is a lot more than you can say for England.

I would also take my chances against England in Wembley than Mexico at Azteca.

 

You mean like last month? Come on now.

In all seriousness, though, I can see where Mexico could come into this conversation. But I think with their player pool, they should be in the top four in the Copa America.

The fact that Brazil is struggling so mightily right now is more an indication that they're playing like crap as opposed to the fact that the other countries like Peru are catching them. While the U.S., obviously, didn't fare well the last time out, I would take them to be competitive against most South American sides over two legs.

 

Even after that, yes.

There is no more difficult venue to play at the Estadio Azteca. Brazil has taken their best teams there and lost to Mexico. It's the only CONCACAF venue I don't expect the USA to win at.

And there is no more difficult area of the world to play away matches than in Central America. It starts with Mexico

 

I think there are a few in South America, like La Paz. Heck, Brazil and Argentina got their way for a while with that one by getting the altitude rule put in, but last I checked it got lifted.

 

Yeah, it's not Bolivia's fault their country has a high altitude.

 

Yes it is. They should have thought about that when they established their border.