England of 1998 would have won this World Cup

What if Robben was injured?

Originally Posted by Sparky***

What if Robben was injured?

depay would've had more game time i think. focus would've been on the left wing rather than the right.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

What if Robben was injured?

Don't think he played in '98 pol.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Don't think he played in '98 pol.

His hairline suggests differently.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Don't think he played in '98 pol.

Well holland are lucky it isn't 1998, because they haven't even played that well.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Well holland are lucky it isn't 1998, because they haven't even played that well.

Still being in the tournament>playing well.

Holland went two rounds further than England in 1998, too.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Still being in the tournament>playing well.

Holland went two rounds further than England in 1998, too.

You obviously didn't see my exchange with harri earlier.
I'm being sarcastic pal.

Originally Posted by Sparky***

You obviously didn't see my exchange with harri earlier.
I'm being sarcastic pal.

Sorry. I thought you were referring to Ashley's post below.

Originally Posted by Ashley's Grime

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.

Originally Posted by Camel

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.

And Uri Geller moving the ball for Scotland's penalty.

Don't think there were any world class teams in '98 either.

Despite Ronaldo's brilliance, Brazil were unconvincing throughout, before getting @#%&!ted in the final, while striker-less France relied on a golden goal from Blanc to beat Paraguay, pens after a stalemate with Italy and an absurd brace from Thuram to beat Croatia.

Nostalgia comes into play a lot with the World Cup. Often isn't won by a world class team, or indeed the best team.

Often by the team that peaks at the right time and holds their nerve

I think the England teams of the 90's and early 00's are hugely underestimated. They played some decent football and were always capable of scoring goals regardless of the opposition.

However, in true English fashion there was always one £#%&!wit capable of £#%&!ing it up for the rest of them and that coupled with the willingness of the English press to do whatever they could to mess with the players heads was a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by believe

I think the England teams of the 90's and early 00's are hugely underestimated. They played some decent football and were always capable of scoring goals regardless of the opposition.

Probably the strongest squad England has taken to a World Cup in recent decades was in 2002. They'd half an hour to score against ten men and failed miserably.

The side in the 90's was so good it failed to win a game at Euro 92 and didn't even make the 1994 World Cup.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Probably the strongest squad England has taken to a World Cup in recent decades was in 2002. They'd half an hour to score against ten men and failed miserably.

The side in the 90's was so good it failed to win a game at Euro 92 and didn't even make the 1994 World Cup.

96, 98 and 2002 they could have quite easily won the tournaments given a bit of luck that teams who win things get.

If you're referring to the Brazil game (i've not got my England stat book to hand) then yes they bottled it but it doesn't mean they weren't good enough.

Originally Posted by believe

then yes they bottled it but it doesn't mean they weren't good enough.

That's exactly what it means.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

That's exactly what it means.

does it balls, they gave Brazil too much respect and then completely lost their heads when Ronaldinho scored a freak goal. United for example have bottled plenty of big games, it doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win them.

It's happened too many times for it to be bad luck. Good sides remember the good luck; poorer sides remember the bad luck.

International football is generally of a lower quality than the Champions League, but the pressure is far greater. Bottle is vital.

Thought the Japorea team would have been in with a shout tbh.

Originally Posted by The Watcher

Probably the strongest squad England has taken to a World Cup in recent decades was in 2002. They'd half an hour to score against ten men and failed miserably.

The side in the 90's was so good it failed to win a game at Euro 92 and didn't even make the 1994 World Cup.

Originally Posted by believe

does it balls, they gave Brazil too much respect and then completely lost their heads when Ronaldinho scored a freak goal. United for example have bottled plenty of big games, it doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win them.

But apart from that they were great

If you fail against the first decent side you play in the KO round of the World Cup, you weren't "good enough". This has happened repeatedly to the national team. In fact, England has failed to beat any of the major international sides in the KO rounds at a World Cup apart from 1966. It's a very average record.