United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Football
Closed Thread
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:01 PM
Jez Quigley
 
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers
Too slow imo, would get absolutely murdered on the counter here.


That's also a very good point

You'd have to have Anderton and McManaman in there I suppose :shakehead:
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:02 PM
carlosartorial
 
Default

No, they wouldn't - they'd £#%&! it up.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:09 PM
Marvel7
 
Default

3 best tournaments I have seen England play were '90, '96 and '98. What do they all have in common? Three CB's.

Agree with whoever it was that said the '96 team was better than the '98 team. Think the main reason for that was Shearer and Sheringham as a partnership, by '98 Sheringham was no longer first choice and there was not a proper partnership up front. Owen came into during that tournament but he and Shearer were not exactly a partnership. Think the other thing Hoddle and Venables got wrong was their choice of wing backs, too many times McManaman or Anderton were used, they were never wing backs.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:14 PM
red in cumbria
 
Default

England were lucky in 1990, and the general standard of football there (especially in the latter stages) was dire.

1996, 1998 *and* 2002 were more impressive showings. IMO.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:17 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red in cumbria
England were lucky in 1990, and the general standard of football there (especially in the latter stages) was dire.

1996, 1998 *and* 2002 were more impressive showings. IMO.
If Giggs played for england they would have beaten Brazil imho
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:18 PM
Ethers
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
If Giggs played for england they would have beaten Brazil imho


What an odd point to make.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:20 PM
Mr Castro
 
Default

England were £#%&!ed in the Brazil game. Playing against 10 men and they didn't have a clue what to do.

1996 was the best team, bit more luck and they'd have won Euro 96. That 4-1 against Holland is up there with the top 10 best ever England performances.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:20 PM
Camel
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginners
The euro 96 team was better
had tons of favourable ref decisions to get as far as they did. against spain especially. still couldn't even do as well as denmark or greece.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:20 PM
Grimson
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
If Giggs played for england they would have beaten Brazil imho
Not if Ballack played for Brazil.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:21 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethers


What an odd point to make.
fwiw i've thought it loads of times, but yes you are right, it is odd

Beckham, Scholes, Butt, Giggs

Top £#%&!ing midfield that #obviouspoint
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:23 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Not if Ballack played for Brazil.
Oh come on, Giggs nearly kind of did or something ffs...
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:23 PM
croberts
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Not if Ballack played for Brazil.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:24 PM
Ethers
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimson
Not if Ballack played for Brazil.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:24 PM
jem
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust
Not sure how many more tournament failures it will take for the England national team to realise they need to play a formation that has 3 in centre midfield
how long did it take moyes at united?


england would have won in 86 if robson had stayed fit.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:25 PM
red in cumbria
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Castro
England were £#%&!ed in the Brazil game. Playing against 10 men and they didn't have a clue what to do.

1996 was the best team, bit more luck and they'd have won Euro 96. That 4-1 against Holland is up there with the top 10 best ever England performances.
Best of my lifetime, IMHO. The 5-1 in Germany was a bit more flukey (though obviously still pretty impressive )
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:26 PM
Camel
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red in cumbria
England were lucky in 1990, and the general standard of football there (especially in the latter stages) was dire.

1996, 1998 *and* 2002 were more impressive showings. IMO.
bobby robson's england was technically better than el tel's, imo. but a bit dull. never hurt italy though. that's one of our biggest problems, and is mainly down to the press; not good enough to just win and build a foundation for success we have to be playing like 70's brasil within 6 months.
 
Unread 30-06-2014, 11:36 PM
Grimson
 
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa
Oh come on, Giggs nearly kind of did or something ffs...
 
Unread 01-07-2014, 12:19 AM
DakotaFredsBigShoe
 
Default

If my auntie had ballacks...
 
Unread 01-07-2014, 12:31 AM
Ashley's Grime
 
Default

Apart from the fact that England weren't good enough to win France 98, if they'd beaten the Argies, they'd have played Holland in the QF, Brazil in the semi and France in the final.

Not bloody likely.
 
Unread 01-07-2014, 12:32 AM
Part 36 Offer
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotChip
If Scholes could play in a hat, maybe


Awful thread btw
Closed Thread
Similar Threads for: England of 1998 would have won this World Cup
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sir Alex Ferguson resigned as Man United manager on the eve of the treble-winning 1998-99 season fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 14-08-2022 12:40 PM
David Beckham opens up on crying 'uncontrollably' after his red card in the 1998 World Cup fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 16-06-2022 03:00 PM
Retro-Fred: Cole 1995-1998 Ranier Wolfcastle Football 22 29-12-2017 05:48 PM
Juventus 1996 - 1998 Coracao Football 18 07-04-2010 04:25 PM
The last time we drew our 2 opening games was in the 1998-1999 season toseeunited Football 20 16-08-2007 12:53 PM
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:25 PM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.