England-Overrated

Hi,

I surely think that many English players and English teams are overrated in the game, when you are especially playing with a team outside the top 3 leagues, even mid-table teams like Everton are more dangerous to face in European competitions than top Italian clubs like Milan or top clubs in general like Marseille, Porto, Fenerbahce etc. Also the English national team players are obviously overrated because most of the time (even when the English league is not opened to play, if opened they destroy everyone) English national team dominates the first world cup,(2010), and two more tournaments before it starts to fade away. I know people are going to comment with their patriotic feelings but I want to ask:

When did England last win the world cup? 44 years ago

When did England won the European cup? Never, their best resul come 14 years ago when they were the hosts and got to third place.

The English clubs are supposedly "the most succesful clubs in Europe", is it true? No, in the last 10 years they won 2 champ leagues and 1 uefa cup, whereas the Spanish won 4 champ leagues and 4 uefas and Italians winnning 3 champ leagues.

Yes, it might be most watched league in the world, but is English football on top of the world? I highly doubt it.

Haven't seen any similar trends to you. Btw Fenerbache, Porto top clubs? Give me a break...

I think they are perhaps overrated mentally but at the start of the game it was expected to be England's year in the world cup with the golden generation as such. It may not have turned out this way in real life but they certainly were one of the favourites. So no i do not think they are overrated as a national team. In the champions league they may not have won many but consistently English teams get to the semi finals. Also in the Europa league Fulham managed to overcome Juventus and many other big teams that you talk about so it does appear english football is alot stronger atm. I would say the most overated nation is actually France who are in crisis but in the game have almost all the best youngsters.

Firstly, Everton are NOT rated nearly as highly as AC Milan, and I don't think they're rated as highly as Marseille or Porto. They're also hardly a mid-table club, they're the sort of team who challenges for Champions League places.

Secondly, it's hard to argue that the likes of Ashley Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Frank Lampard and Glen Johnson are not amongst the best in the world for their positions. Asking for those players to be majorly decreased would be silly.

Thirdly, SI have not introduced a way for players to perform far worse for their countries than their clubs. As players play far more for their clubs than their countries, it makes sense for them to be rated on the basis of their domestic performances rather than international tournaments every few years.

As for clubs, what happened 7 or 8 years ago is large irrelevent. Look at the Champions League finalists for the last 5 years- most have been PL clubs. In 5 of the last 6 seasons, an English club has got to the final, and one contained 2 English clubs, so that's 6 of a possible 12 finalists (or 50%) being English. In comparison, 3 have been Italian and 2 Spanish (plus Bayern Munich last year). If we drop down to the semi-finals, 9 of the last 16 semi finalists have been English. There can be little doubt that English clubs dominate the Champions League, and the Premier League can therefore be said to be the strongest league in Europe.

Well England have not won a single world cup in any of my save-games.

In 2010 on my Bromley save they lost to spain in the quarter finals.

In 2010 on my St Mirren save they lost in the quarter finals to Italy.

2014 reached semi final, lost 5-1 to Germany

2018 reached semi final, lost on penalties to Argentina

2022 reached the final, lost 2-0 to the Netherlands.

2026 reached the final, lost on penalties after a 2-2 draw to my Scotland team.

So in my game, they've done better than in real life, but they've not won a single world cup.

Yet it's not that surprising, England did promise a little more than they gave in real life based upon individual league performances, and England even seemed to be doing fantastic at the time when the database was written, with a good qualifying performance. Also, since England is perhaps amongst the highest reputation league in the game, and most of the youth players that come through are english, and not other nationalities, unless bought, it naturally means that over time, england will assemble a very good squad of young regen players and go on to challenge the world cup.

Is that realistic? perhaps not, but reputation does seem to effect a lot.

As to club performances, well england has a lot of money in its leagues, it's only natural that they attract some of the best players, and personally I don't think they're way above everyone else. I fear Real Madrid on my st mirren save a lot more than I fear the top englishs sides, and I don't even have the spanish leagues loaded. Barca also have competitive players compared to the top 4 in england (and way better than the one in 5th or even 2nd as for some reason southampton are there ). Now it's true the other spanish side I see in is sevilla and they seem comparable to around a side in around 7th in the premiership (which is actually where everton are on my save).

So well, I think you're putting together a few trends from too limited data. Remember, the game is by nature entirely random, it's never going to perfectly simulate "reality" and it would be boring if it did, I for one am glad to see it's not entirely predictable and I see different results each time.

So basically, don't be such a whiner .

I agree. England don't seem to do particuarly well on my saves, usually go out of the WC2010 in the group stages or the Second Round as in real life.

Other than that there are flukes. Uruguay beat Slovakia in the WC2010 final on one of my saves a while back.

Yeah, I think individually this was a bit worse off in 2008, in which Micah Richards was already Worldbeater material at 20, but correct me if I'm wrong, the attributes appeared to have towned down for 2010 a bit in general. Even if - this is a game made in England, where it also enjoys its most success, can't blame anyone if a bit of overrating slips in, even if unintended - misfired ratings happen with other countries as well. I've probably said a bit on the topic in a similar thread a couple weeks ago, those are bound to pop up after yet another international semi-desaster, as they occur so predictably with the FA.

The Ever So Same Big Four, the Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea sides in particular that did so well in the CL were about as English as Jaguar is these days, but then it was hardly suggested that they are the benchmark to judge the FA by. It is obvious they aren't, blatantly so. As for clubs in general, mid-table teams going far into international knock-out tournaments, that happens in the more developed leagues - be it Fulham, Bremen, Fiorentina, but it's tough to compare leagues with each other by this. There is simply no on-going competition but these knockout games every once in a while, so nobody knows, in particular those who are not right in the thick of European football preferably by profession day in, day out. The Prem League looks almost like a league containing at least two league levels though, with the (usually same four, five) top sides giving the minnows frequently some serious spankings, an assessment that has already been confirmed on both match days so far.

Haven't seen any similar trends to you. Btw Fenerbache, Porto top clubs? Give me a break...

What do you want more? England got to the 3rd place in the world cup and won the next european cup, this just proves what I just said. England had their (almost) most succesful period of football in your game, third place at the world cup then, win the european cup, Then it died down a bit...

When I meant top clubs for Fenerbahce and Porto, I meant in their respective countries and I am sure they won't be ripped apart by Everton IRL like they are in the game.

Firstly, Everton are NOT rated nearly as highly as AC Milan, and I don't think they're rated as highly as Marseille or Porto. They're also hardly a mid-table club, they're the sort of team who challenges for Champions League places.

2000 13th

2001 16th

2002 15th

2003 7th

2004 17th

2005 4th

2006 11th

2007 6th

2008 5th

2009 5th

2010 8th

They look like a definite mid-table team to me...

What do you want more? England got to the 3rd place in the world cup and won the next european cup, this just proves what I just said. England had their (almost) most succesful period of football in your game, third place at the world cup then, win the european cup, Then it died down a bit...

The game was made before the world cup, England had one of the best (the best?) qualifying records, so this would be seen as feasible. And its already been said, theres no way for England players to be made worse when they play for their country. Individually, if they performed as well as they should, England could definetly win trophies. And I hardly think that coming third at the WC and winning the EC once is 'domination' as you put it.

2000 13th

2001 16th

2002 15th

2003 7th

2004 17th

2005 4th

2006 11th

2007 6th

2008 5th

2009 5th

2010 8th

They look like a definite mid-table team to me...

Oh yeah definetly, only out of Europe twice in the last 6 seasons...

2000 13th

2001 16th

2002 15th

2003 7th

2004 17th

2005 4th

2006 11th

2007 6th

2008 5th

2009 5th

2010 8th

They look like a definite mid-table team to me...

Again, 10 years is a very long time in football. Look at the last 6 years. 4th, 11th (due to a hard European campaign), 6th, 5th, 5th, 8th. That 8th place finish was despite several injuries to key players. They had no fit strikers for a few weeks. They're a Champions-League challenging side.

secondly, it's hard to argue that the likes of ashley cole, rio ferdinand, wayne rooney, frank lampard and glen johnson are not amongst the best in the world for their positions.

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Go on then. Name 5 left backs better than Cole, 5 right backs better than Johnson, 7 centre backs better than Ferdinand, 5 strikers better than Rooney and 7 attacking midfielders better than Lampard.

I say 7 for Lampard and Ferdinand because most top teams nowadays play two centre backs and two attacking central midfielders. I could justifiably have said 10, but I'm giving you a sporting chance.

The game was made before the world cup, England had one of the best (the best?) qualifying records, so this would be seen as feasible. And its already been said, theres no way for England players to be made worse when they play for their country. Individually, if they performed as well as they should, England could definetly win trophies. And I hardly think that coming third at the WC and winning the EC once is 'domination' as you put it.

Domination is a bit over-statement, I accept, but you should accept that it is certainly overachieving compared to the RL.

In real life players have mental problem's esp. in the World Cup '10

But in FM, you would expect players like Stevie G and Wayne R to win a major tournament.

2000 13th

2001 16th

2002 15th

2003 7th

2004 17th

2005 4th

2006 11th

2007 6th

2008 5th

2009 5th

2010 8th

They look like a definite mid-table team to me...

Clueless....

Domination is a bit over-statement, I accept, but you should accept that it is certainly overachieving compared to the RL.

Well if any other team except Spain wins the World Cup in 2010 on the game they've overachieved. I don't really want to play the game if the world cup plays out exactly the same as it did in RL every time.

You should complain about this in the data issues forum if you think the England players are rated too highly. Let us know how it goes, I'm sure they'll be very receptive to your concerns.

Go on then. Name 5 left backs better than Cole, 5 right backs better than Johnson, 7 centre backs better than Ferdinand, 5 strikers better than Rooney and 7 attacking midfielders better than Lampard.

I say 7 for Lampard and Ferdinand because most top teams nowadays play two centre backs and two attacking central midfielders. I could justifiably have said 10, but I'm giving you a sporting chance.

Cole: Lahm is the only better Left back, there not much differenced, evra comes in a close 3rd.

Johnson: Lahm, Ramos, Maicon, Sagna, Alves, Zannetti (There is 6, you asked for 5)

Ferdinand: Ledly King when fully fit, Lucio, Vidic, Terry, Puyol. Only got 5

Rooney: Drogba, Eto'o, Villa, Torres and if you want an out and out striker, imho Jermain Defoe.

Lampard: Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo.

Clueless....

Not really I think this has to do with the fact that 8 teams qualify from Europe in the premier league IMHO 7th and down is Mid table, but I understand your position, still, my real point was that IRL Everton can not rip apart teams like Porto, Marseille, Fenerbahçe, Ajax etc.

Cole: Lahm is the only better Left back, there not much differenced, evra comes in a close 3rd.

Johnson: Lahm, Ramos, Maicon, Sagna, Alves, Zannetti (There is 6, you asked for 5)

Ferdinand: Ledly King when fully fit, Lucio, Vidic, Terry, Puyol. Only got 5

Rooney: Drogba, Eto'o, Villa, Torres and if you want an out and out striker, imho Jermain Defoe.

Lampard: Kaka, Messi, Ronaldo.

Johnson I'll give you. Ferdinand... I really can't agree with Terry, Vidic or King simply because a fit Ferdinand is regarded as better than Vidic by most United fans I see post on here, and Terry and King are English so would effectively "take his place". I'll give you Lucio and Puyol.

Rooney, definite cases for Drogba, Villa and Torres, and Eto'o is also not at all outrageous. Defoe, again, he'd just take the place (as an English striker who is the fifth best in the world), but I don't think you could compare them. Rooney scored a lot of goals playing as an out-and-out striker last season.

Lampard... I wouldn't compare him to Ronaldo or Messi. I was thinking more of central players, the likes of Kaka, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, and Sneijder. Kaka has been slightly on the decline since his WPOTY award.

I'll shut up now, before I take this too far off topic

There can be little doubt that English clubs dominate the Champions League, and the Premier League can therefore be said to be the strongest league in Europe.

LMAO. Expand your experience beyond Sky Sports and the anglo tabloids. And 5 right backs better than Johnson? I could name half a dozen in my street alone.

There was quite a big topic on a similar note a few weeks ago. England are not over rated as for their clubs as individuals they are as good as nearly anyone, only way to have this would be to have different mental attributes for international and domestic football but I wouldn't want that.

I do think Everton are slightly over rated on this game it is reasonably easy to win the EPL without buying many new players. All you need is one striker and you can win the EPL in the second season.

Croatia won the 2014 World Cup on my game, does that mean they are over rated as well?

England don't seem too overrated in my game

Have you managed them yet?

LMAO. Expand your experience beyond Sky Sports and the anglo tabloids..

The stats don't lie though, English clubs have done pretty well in the Champions league in recent years.

Have you managed them yet?

A long time ago, yes. I won the Confederations Cup.

I don't think England are over rated (especially the further into the game you get), like it has been posted in the thread England had one of the best qualifying records and this translated into a predicted good world cup (blown out of proportion by the national media). England do have some world class players but they always seem to be a team of individuals rather then a well drilled team.

Ferdinand is over rated, Terry is better then him as is Vidic, would say King but his knees let him down. Would say Hangeland is better then him, Gary Cahill, Dawson, Vermaelen. So that is 7 central defenders who I believe are better then Ferdinand (if you include King.. 6 without him)

A long time ago, yes. I won the Confederations Cup.

I hate that competition I failed miserably in it and got sacked as England manager meaning I didn't get to manage them in the World Cup in England. Especially annoying as the previous World Cup I had not conceded a single goal and lost the final on penalties. Sometimes I really hate FM.

How come people only think England are over rated, didn't France have an even worse World Cup?

I hate that competition I failed miserably in it and got sacked as England manager meaning I didn't get to manage them in the World Cup in England. Especially annoying as the previous World Cup I had not conceded a single goal and lost the final on penalties. Sometimes I really hate FM.

How come people only think England are over rated, didn't France have an even worse World Cup?

Because it's easy to come and say "England are overrated", "English clubs are overrated" with nothing to back that up, and get a reaction.

Going by afced7's screenshot, Turkey are overrated, when did they last win...anything? Yet they have a 3rd place finish? OVERRATED

English players are definately overrated by the media (English media) but at club level their performances tend to be exceptional. Maybe the in-game player adaptability level can be expanded somewhat, for eg. Gerrard & Lampard can't play together because 1 or both are uncomfortable outside of club football. I read in another thread somewhere that Rooney had 90 goals for Englan in 100 odd games which is laughable to say the least.

I hate that competition I failed miserably in it and got sacked as England manager meaning I didn't get to manage them in the World Cup in England. Especially annoying as the previous World Cup I had not conceded a single goal and lost the final on penalties. Sometimes I really hate FM.

How come people only think England are over rated, didn't France have an even worse World Cup?

Except that france had serious issues between players themselves and between the players and staff, Domenech really let things get out of hand and he shouls have been sacked after euro 2008.

Italy on the other hand can be more suitably labelled overrated.

Ferdinand, Terry, Ashley Cole, Gerrard, Lampard, and Rooney are ranked amongst the best in the world. Anyone who says otherwise is just lying to themselves.

I think that their attributes in the game reflect that as well reflects how they play, their personalities etc.

Unfortunately, whenever they are all on the same pitch, it has not worked out for them in real life....and for some people the same has happened in the game.

A lot of things have factored into how they have played for england....but thats a discussion for another day.

It's because they're amazing in the league ffs, you can't make someone **** because they don't perform at a world cup.

You can't make Rooney bad because he didn't play well after 4 games.

Stupid thread

It's because they're amazing in the league ffs, you can't make someone **** because they don't perform at a world cup.

You can't make Rooney bad because he didn't play well after 4 games.

Stupid thread

Exactly its the same as making players much better in the next fm because they had a good world cup, podolski and klose aren't going to be top players.

As in that other thread, which was a follow-up to another similar thread, which was a follow up to another similar thread... if at all, mind, rather than arguing about the quality of the top players, I'd rather put my doubts on those surrounding them. Sure, you could argue that Gerrard and Terry were in better shape (they certainly were in better shape prior to EURO 2004 or WC 2006... just as Rooney), but then there are also those not quite developed yet like Johnson (sorry, no way), there is no real quality keeper, no holding midfielder, wingers with much pace but little football brains and an over-reliance on Rooney upfront with little back-up in sight. An explanation that makes much more sense - rather than arbitrarily separating their quality levels into "club quality" and "national side quality", did anybody ever consider that they're playing in a different team when with the FA, a team that has arguably much bigger holes than any of their club sides?

Yet, you'd expect them to have a stint at something on paper, realistically, this is a team that should have a shot at the latter stages. Not all of the players are hailing from the top quality Premiership sides, not all of them are key players at their clubs (how much more Liverpool relied on Xabi Alonso rather than any English in their side was seen the last season), but there is a core of quality that could do something - if it is able to cover those holes. Certainly other nations have achieved more with lesser squads every once in a while. However, it's nowhere near an elite squad and if those observations are anything to go by, it's being reflected by FM10. In my FM08 saves, the FA frequently came close to winning EURO 2008 or were thereabouts, were regularly featured in the top 5 of the World rankings, but then they'd also sometimes fumble in such competitions just when they faced the first serious opposition, like in the quarters of a World Cup, just like in real life.

I don't think England are over rated (especially the further into the game you get), like it has been posted in the thread England had one of the best qualifying records and this translated into a predicted good world cup (blown out of proportion by the national media). England do have some world class players but they always seem to be a team of individuals rather then a well drilled team.

Ferdinand is over rated, Terry is better then him as is Vidic, would say King but his knees let him down. Would say Hangeland is better then him, Gary Cahill, Dawson, Vermaelen. So that is 7 central defenders who I believe are better then Ferdinand (if you include King.. 6 without him)

After watching United for a few years, a fit ferdinand > vidic any day. You might have a point with terry but imo he's overrated.

As I keep saying, there is nothing wrong with a set of individual England players, but as a team they turn out worse than the sum of their parts, and FM fails to replicate this. It's a bit like a club team failing to gel - worse than the sum of their parts.

In addition, no real formation can fit Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard together - arguably three of the best players in the world in their individual positions - all three with Rooney up front alone is imbalanced; with Gerrard on the left the formation becomes imbalanced with no width on the left; with Gerrard on the left in a 4-4-2 Rooney is paired up front with various useless strikers except Crouch, and even then there's only one crossing outlet (as Gerrard is on the left), and if you're going to ask Shaun Wright-Phillips to put in good crosses you will be waiting forever!

It's not an individual problem - it's a team problem, and it should be therefore a team "bug fix", not "knock Rooney down".

Lots of players underperformed at the World Cup - and lots of players overperformed. But it's just a few games at the World Cup!

To put into perspective: Man-for-man, England's midfield of Barry-Lampard-Gerrard is probably better than Schweinsteiger-Khedira-Özil. Yet nobody doubts which works better as a team.

Yet, you'd expect them to have a stint at something on paper, realistically, this is a team that should have a shot at the latter stages. Not all of the players are hailing from the top quality Premiership sides, not all of them are key players at their clubs (how much more Liverpool relied on Xabi Alonso rather than any English in their side was seen the last season), but there is a core of quality that could do something - if it is able to cover those holes. Certainly other nations have achieved more with lesser squads every once in a while. However, it's nowhere near an elite squad and if those observations are anything to go by, it's being reflected by FM10. In my FM08 saves, the FA frequently came close to winning EURO 2008 or were thereabouts, were regularly featured in the top 5 of the World rankings, but then they'd also sometimes fumble in such competitions just when they faced the first serious opposition, like in the quarters of a World Cup, just like in real life.

Its Gerrard and Torres and Liverpool can't play without.

Lets look at key players at their clubs, team against Germany:

David James - Certainly was a key player at Portsmouth

Glen Johnson - Argueable he is, but I'll give you one.

Ashley Cole - One of Chelsea's key players, along with:

John Terry - Pretty obvious this one.

Matthew Upson - West Ham's best defender.

Gareth Barry - Not at City but was Villa's key player along with:

James Milner - Pretty obvious he was key to Villa, especially more so after Barry left.

Steven Gerrard - Obvious

Frank Lampard - Obvious

Wayne Rooney - Obvious

Jermaine Defoe - One of Spurs' best strikers.

So 2 out of the starting 11 arent key players for their clubs. Slag off the team if you like but at least get your facts right.

Excluding last year English teams always appeared to get to the CL final. The English Prem league is clearly the best in the world as it is shown to people all over the world, I don't know anyone in England who watches La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga games, just Prem league.

If only that stupid 25 man rule didn't come into place, I think without it the Prem league could have got even stronger.

I have little doubt that the England team are overrated, we shouldn't have taken Heskey with us though, if we took a striker that can score we might have looked a better team to the World Cup making this thread less relevant.

I think Capello is overrated, I think he make England look like a second rate team, so if anyone is overrated it is Italian management.

The stats don't lie though, English clubs have done pretty well in the Champions league in recent years.

I'd agree mate, they've done really well. But to say they've 'dominated' it is rubbish.

Arguably, the last 5 years are the most relevant - and there's been one winner from the PL; Barca have won it twice themselves in the same space of time, and Italian teams twice. If we go back further it doesn't get any better.

If you like English football it's nice to have seen other teams go quite far in the competition. But really, that's an irrelevance - quarter/semi finalists don't add up to 'domination'. Winners do.

I'd agree mate, they've done really well. But to say they've 'dominated' it is rubbish.

You just quoted a guy who said they've done pretty well, not dominated

It is pretty hard to 'dominate' a knockout cup competition though, it just doesn't really happen (although you could argue it did in the 50s and the 70s). If it were a straight league then I think it would be fair to just look at the winners but in this format I think you really do need to look at the latter stages, especially since the best nations will enter four clubs.

Dominant is probably not the best description, but the English league is currently ranked as the best by UEFA.

ranked as the best by UEFA.

I think that says it all

So 2 out of the starting 11 arent key players for their clubs. Slag off the team if you like but at least get your facts right.

Yeah sorry, my fishy wording. Was merely arguing that beyond the crop of top players, few are key players for the top sides that dominated and the PL the last... almost decade. Upson might be key at Westham, but on the highest levels of international footie he didn't fare that well.

Dominant is probably not the best description.

Especially since it's been the same four clubs that have been doing that well and collectin all the points for the UEFA rankings, the same four clubs that not only "dominated" the CL, but the Premier League alike, almost playing in a second tier above the rest up to the point where the only question at the top was who of them would finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively. In the one season in which that spell was broken in recent years, Everton, albeit controversially, went out in the qualifying stages. Similarly, was this season an oddity caused by Liverpool's failure, or have clubs like City, Aston Villa and Spurs already improved up to the point where they can challenge the big four season in, season out? Time will tell. I think the closest football ever had to a "football super league" was the Serie A during its "prime", where even minor sides boosted and attracted its set of top talent, but then that was a vastly different playing field. There are more clubs competing with big money than back then.

You just quoted a guy who said they've done pretty well, not dominated

Groan. Read ALL the relevant posts.

It is pretty hard to 'dominate' a knockout cup competition though

Yeah, I agree, but my initial post highlights somebody who thinks otherwise. That's my fundamental point. Not that one league is better than another or one nations teams aren't as good as another. Just that English teams don't dominate the ECC. Honestly - one win in five, when two other countries have two each; IMO.

but the English league is currently ranked as the best by UEFA.

Again, I don't differ here - but it's just not relevant.

Dominant is probably not the best description

Yeah, that's it. I'll bow out here Daf. We'll just differ. Cheers.

Turkey are overrated, when did they last win...anything? Yet they have a 3rd place finish? OVERRATED

Turkey got to third place in 2002 world cup and the third place (Shared with Russia) in Euro 2008, much better than England and/or Scotland in the past 10 years, if you ask me

I almost forgot the Confederations Cup 3rd place in 2003...

That's true, they did well in the World Cup as well.

That's true, they did well in the World Cup as well.

Obviously though, English football is much better.

Well, we qualified, and according to the FIFA World Rankings, England are better than Turkey, and if memory serves, England are above Turkey in the UEFA Coefficients. Both of these facts suggest that it is in fact much better, so yes, your assertion is correct.

By qualifying, even Honduras, New Zealand and North Korea had a better World Cup than Turkey

Turkey got to third place in 2002 world cup and the third place (Shared with Russia) in Euro 2008, much better than England and/or Scotland in the past 10 years, if you ask me

I almost forgot the Confederations Cup 3rd place in 2003...

:confused: i thought it was croatia and russia that lost in the semi-finals of euro 2008, not turkey.