SI need to sort out the England National team

[sfg]

Considering that they've only not qualified for three World Cups in total (out of 16), and missed out on just 5 Euros (out of 13), I'd say they have a better record of qualifying than not.

I said they were more likely to not qualify than they were to WIN the tournament. I'm actually stunned that they've only qualified for 8 out of 13 Euro championships.

Considering that England have won the world cup once and failed to qualify 3 times, then they are definitely more likely to not qualify than Win the tournament.

I suspect in FM they are much much more likely to Win than fail to qualify. But that's just my experience of it.

[Guest]

The figure for European Championships will be skewed by the fact that in the old days 'qualifying' meant reaching the quarter finals.

Personally I'd agree with a couple of the points above: outside of top clubs many of the nations that aren't 'top' nations seem to have relatively underrated players, and England do have the potential within the squad to make an impact at tournaments - which is reflected in FM - but lack the necessary cohesion as a team irl.

[BenArsenal]

I said they were more likely to not qualify than they were to WIN the tournament. I'm actually stunned that they've only qualified for 8 out of 13 Euro championships.

Considering that England have won the world cup once and failed to qualify 3 times, then they are definitely more likely to not qualify than Win the tournament.

I suspect in FM they are much much more likely to Win than fail to qualify. But that's just my experience of it.

OK, fine.

But when you consider that in the first five editions of the Euros from 1960 to 1976 the official 'finals' tournament only contained four teams, not qualifying for that final four can be explained. Plenty of other teams missed out then as well.

Since expansion in 1980 England has only missed out twice, 1984 and McClaren's 2008.

They qualify on a regular basis. Winning is obviously another matter. But the margin's not great is it? England are the international version of the mid-table team. Always there, but never getting close to winning anything. Occasionally they drop the ball, but that happens once in a long while.

[Koki]

Regardless of what you English people think of your team... you have good players! All you may need is better teamwork(?). The bookmakers place you in 4th place behind Spain, Germany and The Netherlands for the upcoming EC. Maybe some English players are overrated in FM but winning the WC 2014 is not soo unrealistic in my eyes. There are 100,000s of FM savegames played out there, do you really expect England to win the WC in none of them?

[SCIAG]

How many English actually play for the top tier clubs in England anymore? Especially in attacking roles. Its not versatility they lack unless by versatility you mean technical skill.

England's probable front four at the Euros (once Rooney's suspension is over) will be Young, Milner, Rooney and Welbeck. They all play for one of the two best teams in England. In addition, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott play for the third best side. Of those, only Milner and Oxlade-Chamberlain weren't regulars for their teams, in Milner's case that was partly due to injury, in Chamberlain's case it is because he was inexperienced. He became a regular in the second half of the season, when Arsenal were in better form. Furthermore, Sturridge was a regular at Chelsea, and Adam Johnson is at Man City.

Beyond them, we have six central midfielders at those four clubs, none of whom will be going due to injury or retirement, and another at the fourth best club (and another who has been injured forever). Our left back and two centre backs play for the Champions League winners; three centre backs play for Manchester United and one centre back and a right back for Man City; Kyle Walker is at Spurs.

You can criticise a lot of things about the English National Team, but you can't say blatantly incorrect things like implying that not many English players play for the best English clubs.

[kingjericho]

In my save England was 1st for several years but then a completely unknown manager took charge and now they're already in 8th place

[Lenzar]

England won the WC (on penalties against Germany :o) in the 2014 in my City save.

Who was the manager? Me.

Also, they played like cack in the groups, nearly dropping points, but played better in the big games. Hmm..realistic, I think.

[Welshace]

wow ...anger issues....

Im welsh... let me say that to begin with..

England have top class players and are more than capable of winning any tournament they enter frankly... they just don't perform... everyone can see that...

If its such a big issue for you... thats what the editor is for... change it yourself and dont post nonsense on here

[michael]

My current save which is only in season 2, England are 23rd in the world. Pearce is still in the job too which is ridiculous

Same on my save but they dropped to 35th before making it back up to 25th, Pearce still there!

[JayIgnition]

I started the game with Amkar Perm and ive been at Liverpool 2 seasons now.... England are Ranked 20th in the ratings with Pearce still at the helm. wish i could get rid of him without cheating hes terrible. the last time i played the game England were beaten at Wembley by Saudi Arabia 2-0... Colombia won the 2014 world cup.. and theyre ranked 1st. Falcao and Rodriguez are amazing.

[Bababui]

England's probable front four at the Euros (once Rooney's suspension is over) will be Young, Milner, Rooney and Welbeck. They all play for one of the two best teams in England. In addition, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott play for the third best side. Of those, only Milner and Oxlade-Chamberlain weren't regulars for their teams, in Milner's case that was partly due to injury, in Chamberlain's case it is because he was inexperienced. He became a regular in the second half of the season, when Arsenal were in better form. Furthermore, Sturridge was a regular at Chelsea, and Adam Johnson is at Man City.

Beyond them, we have six central midfielders at those four clubs, none of whom will be going due to injury or retirement, and another at the fourth best club (and another who has been injured forever). Our left back and two centre backs play for the Champions League winners; three centre backs play for Manchester United and one centre back and a right back for Man City; Kyle Walker is at Spurs.

You can criticise a lot of things about the English National Team, but you can't say blatantly incorrect things like implying that not many English players play for the best English clubs.

England produce few quality attacking players for a (part of a) nation of its size. The last match against France proves it.

[crouchaldinho]

Bababui, we get it, you don't like England. Give us all a break.

One match doesn't prove anything. For goodness sake, one tournament's selection of players doesn't prove much really. It's part of the cycle of football - every national side has transitional periods whilst blooding new talent and waiting for a new generation to come through. And you simply can't say that about England because England have produced great attacking players over the years and hopefully we'll have a new generation of talented players coming through in the future (e.g. Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Welbeck etc.)

SCIAG called you out on an ignorant comment you had made and instead of winding your neck in somewhat you continue to post as if you are an expert on the ills of the English national football team. Please desist or at least be a little more subtle.

Literally every post I read of yours is trolling England or English football and I get tired of reading them. I'm sure you have something more positive to contribute, so please let me see it, as I'm tired of reading the same stuff over and over again from you.

And may I ask what footballing nation you support or favour? Is it simply a rivalry or jealousy issue? I don't understand why you go out of your way to comment on the ills of the English national football team. Most of us English fans are grounded and all too aware of the weaknesses of the England team and we don't need constant sniping from you to remind us of them.

[BiggusD]

Bababui, we get it, you don't like England. Give us all a break.

One match doesn't prove anything. For goodness sake, one tournament's selection of players doesn't prove much really. It's part of the cycle of football - every national side has transitional periods whilst blooding new talent and waiting for a new generation to come through. And you simply can't say that about England because England have produced great attacking players over the years and hopefully we'll have a new generation of talented players coming through in the future (e.g. Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Welbeck etc.)

SCIAG called you out on an ignorant comment you had made and instead of winding your neck in somewhat you continue to post as if you are an expert on the ills of the English national football team. Please desist or at least be a little more subtle.

Literally every post I read of yours is trolling England or English football and I get tired of reading them. I'm sure you have something more positive to contribute, so please let me see it, as I'm tired of reading the same stuff over and over again from you.

And may I ask what footballing nation you support or favour? Is it simply a rivalry or jealousy issue? I don't understand why you go out of your way to comment on the ills of the English national football team. Most of us English fans are grounded and all too aware of the weaknesses of the England team and we don't need constant sniping from you to remind us of them.

I think a more interesting discussion then, is if the English system of a u18 league with only 15-20 matches a season plus a reserve team with equally few matches is the reason English players who are coming up through the youth system with very few exceptions have weaker individual skill than virtually any other major football nation in the world. England chased the ball most of the match today, and you will do the same vs Ukraine as well - I even doubt you will exceed 55% vs Sweden!

The other major football nations have youth leagues with twice as many competitive matches each season iirc. Is there need for a change to the youth system in England? What are the advantages of the English system compared to those abroad?

[crouchaldinho]

I think a more interesting discussion then, is if the English system of a u18 league with only 15-20 matches a season plus a reserve team with equally few matches.......

Maybe an interesting discussion for the football forum. Not for this thread though.

.....is the reason English players who are coming up through the youth system with very few exceptions have weaker individual skill than virtually any other major football nation in the world.

Weaker individual skill than any other major football nation in the world? What are you talking about? I can't agree at all.

England chased the ball most of the match today, and you will do the same vs Ukraine as well - I even doubt you will exceed 55% vs Sweden!

Chased the ball? Really? In fact, they did the opposite in that they sat deep, stayed organised, reduced attacking space and restricted France mostly to efforts from range.

There are many different ways to win a football match. The tactical choice versus France was to play counter-attacking football and it worked pretty well.

Basically, in simple terms, the score line is the statistic that counts, not the possession percentage.

The other major football nations have youth leagues with twice as many competitive matches each season iirc. Is there need for a change to the youth system in England? What are the advantages of the English system compared to those abroad?

As I said, one for the football forum and not for here.

There are no doubt multiple reasons why England are not as successful as we (the English) might hope at International tournaments. However, to suggest that the English don't have or don't produce talented players is a load of nonsense, quite frankly. Football is our national sport, we have a great tradition in our country, and if you look at the history of our game and you'll see plenty of great talents.

It's irrelevant anyway, to be perfectly honest, because the thread is about the English national team on Football Manager. From the reports above, it seems people have had mixed experiences, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If we're honest, England are like an upper mid-table side of International football. Most of the time, they're middle of the pile (qualifying for tournaments, often getting to Quarter-finals IRL). Sometimes they'll overachieve (semi-finals, for example, or maybe even winners [1966 ]). Sometimes they won't do so well (1994 and 2008 spring to mind). And the experiences in this thread don't sound too unreasonable to me.

[deltablue]

I'm in 2046 on FM2011, how many times have England won the world cup on it? once, in 1966 (Ie the RL win). England didn't really get improved in Fm2012 either. It's not unrealistic for England to win, just random is random.

About to get to 2046 in FM11, England have won the Euro's and World Cup once each in-game with no other final appearances, which doesn't seem that far-fatched.

[Bababui]

Bababui, we get it, you don't like England. Give us all a break.

One match doesn't prove anything. For goodness sake, one tournament's selection of players doesn't prove much really. It's part of the cycle of football - every national side has transitional periods whilst blooding new talent and waiting for a new generation to come through. And you simply can't say that about England because England have produced great attacking players over the years and hopefully we'll have a new generation of talented players coming through in the future (e.g. Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Welbeck etc.)

SCIAG called you out on an ignorant comment you had made and instead of winding your neck in somewhat you continue to post as if you are an expert on the ills of the English national football team. Please desist or at least be a little more subtle.

Literally every post I read of yours is trolling England or English football and I get tired of reading them. I'm sure you have something more positive to contribute, so please let me see it, as I'm tired of reading the same stuff over and over again from you.

And may I ask what footballing nation you support or favour? Is it simply a rivalry or jealousy issue? I don't understand why you go out of your way to comment on the ills of the English national football team. Most of us English fans are grounded and all too aware of the weaknesses of the England team and we don't need constant sniping from you to remind us of them.

Since 1960 in WCs and Euros England have advanced out of group stage 3 times; they have failed to qualify 4 times..including Euro 2008. What does this tell you about the English national team? What does it tell the rest of the world about the quality of player England produces? Its hardly trolling to suggest that FM vastly overrates English players. And vastly overpowers the 442. What major footballing nation or club uses it?

Who are these great English attacking players? England has employed Heskey and Crouch as first team strikers in recent years. What does this tell us about the quality of striker England produces? Except for Rooney, what English striker is world class?

Reality hurts Crouchy. But its still reality. There is little to be jealous about when it comes to the English National Team and I am a good part English. FM ought to reflect the reality of football. I stand by my comments earlier. Apart from Rooney, is there a world class player on the England 23? Hodgson all but admits it himself with the tactics he employs. When you park the bus against a powerhouse like Belgium, maybe you just arent good enough.

[Krald]

About to get to 2046 in FM11, England have won the Euro's and World Cup once each in-game with no other final appearances, which doesn't seem that far-fatched.

They actually went and won the 2046 World Cup just to make my point look foolish actually, grumbles at them, they must be prowling the forums of the past!.

[crouchaldinho]

Since 1960 in WCs and Euros England have advanced out of group stage 3 times; they have failed to qualify 4 times..including Euro 2008. What does this tell you about the English national team?

The record you have referred to there is certainly not in the World Cup and European Championships as you seem to suggest.

In the European Championships, England may well have failed to qualify a number of times early on in the competition but then only four teams did qualify for the final tournament early on in its history!

Only in 1996, did the European Championships change to including 16 teams at the finals. England qualified as hosts and went on a scintillating run to the semi-finals where they were beaten by the Germans on penalties. But let's make sure that we ignore any success stories!

I guess we shouldn't talk about the World Cup. England were of course winners in 1966. Aside from winning the competition on that occasion, they were also semi-finalists in 1990 and they have been quarter-finalists on six occasions.

Once again, if you are going to post negative comments about England, please get your facts straight.

Its hardly trolling to suggest that FM vastly overrates English players. And vastly overpowers the 442. What major footballing nation or club uses it?

You know you're trolling. Every post you make about England seems like a snide remark aimed at taking English football fans down a notch. We certainly don't need your constant sniping on here. It's tiresome.

And you're basically being proved wrong in your assertion in this thread. People are having mixed experiences. England certainly don't seem 'overrated' or 'overpowered'.

Also, I certainly don't think that 4-4-2 is overpowered in the match engine either. As someone who experiments tactically with the game, I've found playing four band formations with inside forwards is much more advantageous in the match engine. 4-2-3-1 deep is probably the best formation to get results with in the match engine. 4-4-2 can be played well on FM but then so can pretty much any formation to be honest. It would be terrible, in my opinion, if SI suddenly made certain formations more powerful than others due to what is more fashionable at the time or what is being used most effectively. It would also show a pretty poor and primitive understanding of football if they did so too.

Actually, I should note here that I personally play 4-4-2 quite often on Football Manager almost for the extra challenge. When I play 4-5-1 variations such as 4-2-3-1, I actually find the game easier!

Who are these great English attacking players? England has employed Heskey and Crouch as first team strikers in recent years. What does this tell us about the quality of striker England produces? Except for Rooney, what English striker is world class?

I said that England have produced great attacking players over the years and hopefully we'll have a new generation of talented players coming through in the future (e.g. Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Welbeck etc.) Right now, Rooney is clearly our best striker and why would I argue otherwise?

I don't know what point you are trying to make about Crouch and Rooney. We could go through pretty much every team at Euro 2012 and pick out a number of players who are more functional for the team than individually brilliant.

And England have a record of producing pretty decent strikers, so please don't worry. Don't names like Shearer, Owen and Rooney ring any bells?

Reality hurts Crouchy. But its still reality.

Reality is sixth place in the FIFA rankings. Reality is qualifying for most of recent tournaments with 2008 and 1994 being the most recent exceptions. Reality is being a past World Cup winner. Reality is being a side who are usually qualifying for tournaments and often getting to Quarter-finals. Sometimes England overachieve (semi-finals, for example, or maybe even winners [1966 ]). Sometimes they won't do so well (1994 and 2008 spring to mind). And, as I said above, the experiences in this thread don't sound too unreasonable to me.

There is little to be jealous about when it comes to the English National Team and I am a good part English.

But also Welsh, if I recall correctly. You make so many snide comments about English football that I assumed it was based on rivalry.

I guess you're an American though? I mean, that's your primary nationality. I guess if you live in a country where football is not your national sport, you might look at a country like England, where football is a great tradition, with jealousy. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but I really can't understand the constant sniping from you.

FM ought to reflect the reality of football. I stand by my comments earlier.

I wouldn't stand by your comments if I were you. They were basically incorrect. SCIAG put you straight and you appear to have ignored him!

And as for FM reflecting the reality of football, there is even a thread on this forum which shows CAs for teams at the Euros. England are well behind the likes of Spain, Germany, France and Italy on FM12! I mean, CA isn't necessarily the best thing to go with on FM, but it's a good general indicator. You appear to believe England are hugely inferior to most international sides so please, by all means, take some happiness from that at least!

[Ackter]

My current save actually has England performing the worst I've ever seen them, but they're usually top class.

They've just dropped out of the top 20 ranked nations in mine.

[Bababui]

The record you have referred to there is certainly not in the World Cup and European Championships as you seem to suggest.

In the European Championships, England may well have failed to qualify a number of times early on in the competition but then only four teams did qualify for the final tournament early on in its history!

Only in 1996, did the European Championships change to including 16 teams at the finals. England qualified as hosts and went on a scintillating run to the semi-finals where they were beaten by the Germans on penalties. But let's make sure that we ignore any success stories!

I guess we shouldn't talk about the World Cup. England were of course winners in 1966. Aside from winning the competition on that occasion, they were also semi-finalists in 1990 and they have been quarter-finalists on six occasions.

Once again, if you are going to post negative comments about England, please get your facts straight.

You know you're trolling. Every post you make about England seems like a snide remark aimed at taking English football fans down a notch. We certainly don't need your constant sniping on here. It's tiresome.

And you're basically being proved wrong in your assertion in this thread. People are having mixed experiences. England certainly don't seem 'overrated' or 'overpowered'.

Also, I certainly don't think that 4-4-2 is overpowered in the match engine either. As someone who experiments tactically with the game, I've found playing four band formations with inside forwards is much more advantageous in the match engine. 4-2-3-1 deep is probably the best formation to get results with in the match engine. 4-4-2 can be played well on FM but then so can pretty much any formation to be honest. It would be terrible, in my opinion, if SI suddenly made certain formations more powerful than others due to what is more fashionable at the time or what is being used most effectively. It would also show a pretty poor and primitive understanding of football if they did so too.

Actually, I should note here that I personally play 4-4-2 quite often on Football Manager almost for the extra challenge. When I play 4-5-1 variations such as 4-2-3-1, I actually find the game easier!

I said that England have produced great attacking players over the years and hopefully we'll have a new generation of talented players coming through in the future (e.g. Wilshere, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Welbeck etc.) Right now, Rooney is clearly our best striker and why would I argue otherwise?

I don't know what point you are trying to make about Crouch and Rooney. We could go through pretty much every team at Euro 2012 and pick out a number of players who are more functional for the team than individually brilliant.

And England have a record of producing pretty decent strikers, so please don't worry. Don't names like Shearer, Owen and Rooney ring any bells?

Reality is sixth place in the FIFA rankings. Reality is qualifying for most of recent tournaments with 2008 and 1994 being the most recent exceptions. Reality is being a past World Cup winner. Reality is being a side who are usually qualifying for tournaments and often getting to Quarter-finals. Sometimes England overachieve (semi-finals, for example, or maybe even winners [1966 ]). Sometimes they won't do so well (1994 and 2008 spring to mind). And, as I said above, the experiences in this thread don't sound too unreasonable to me.

But also Welsh, if I recall correctly. You make so many snide comments about English football that I assumed it was based on rivalry.

I guess you're an American though? I mean, that's your primary nationality. I guess if you live in a country where football is not your national sport, you might look at a country like England, where football is a great tradition, with jealousy. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but I really can't understand the constant sniping from you.

I wouldn't stand by your comments if I were you. They were basically incorrect. SCIAG put you straight and you appear to have ignored him!

And as for FM reflecting the reality of football, there is even a thread on this forum which shows CAs for teams at the Euros. England are well behind the likes of Spain, Germany, France and Italy on FM12! I mean, CA isn't necessarily the best thing to go with on FM, but it's a good general indicator. You appear to believe England are hugely inferior to most international sides so please, by all means, take some happiness from that at least!

1)My facts were straight. Since 1960 England have failed to qualify more times (4) than advance out of the group stage. Compare this record to Germany or Italy. England have a good record for a mid-ranged football power. But there successes are far into the past.

2)"...if SI suddenly made certain formations more powerful than others due to what is more fashionable at the time or what is being used most effectively." I dont think managers in real life use formations because they are 'fashionable' but they do use them if they can use them 'more effectively'. FM should reflect reality by trying its best to replicate what is happening in real football.

3)Shearer..great striker from long ago...Owen..great striker from ten years ago career destroyed by injury...Rooney great striker but has yet to produce on the international stage. My point was that great footballing nations always have a handful of great strikers. Now England have a large population. Why arent they producing world class players in the number that its population would expect? Might there not be a problem in development? Why can a small country like Holland produce loads of attacking world class players?

4)FIFA rankings? Really? Really?? Hardly a credible authoritative source. If you believe England are sixth best in the world I respect your opinion but disagree with it.

5)Im both English and Welsh. Im not sniping. This is a football forum...both for in game and real footballing. Its a valid criticism to claim that both the game and the forum are a bit too English-centric. If SI were based in Germany or Italy or Brazil then sure, they have the silverware to be (unintentionally) nationalistic in the way they present their home country in the game. England are a midlevel footballing nation and its recent results and current roster reflect this IMO. The game IMO overrates English players. Again, IMO its unintentional and a natural result of the game being British. I would expect to see the same thing if this were Basketball Manager and it were made by American developers.

5)I disagree with SCIAG and yourself but I respect your opinions. They are highly selective IMO. That is an excellent thread. Doesnt it support my real life opinion on the state of English football? And if you add the injured players to the CA list it {from that thread} "England would have been rated more like Germany if Lampard, Ferdinand, Carrick and another 3.rd goalie than Butland had been included." England arent anywhere close to Germany IRL with those players. This also seems to support my opinion that the game overpowers England and English players.

[Cougar2010]

1)My facts were straight. Since 1960 England have failed to qualify more times (4) than advance out of the group stage. Compare this record to Germany or Italy. England have a good record for a mid-ranged football power. But there successes are far into the past.

I presume you are talking about just the European Championships here otherwise you must be living on another planet or just plain dumb.

Its fair to say they haven't been England's best results but since the expansion in 1996 England's record is one semi, one quarter, one group stage & one not qualified. The period 1996-2004 is by far Englands best tournaments and therefore their successes are not "Far into the Past"

As crouch has also pointed out you've chosen to ignore the other major international competition - The World Cup. This has been much more successful for England qualifying for 12 of the 16 tournaments they entered and advancing beyond the group stage 11 times.

2)"...if SI suddenly made certain formations more powerful than others due to what is more fashionable at the time or what is being used most effectively." I dont think managers in real life use formations because they are 'fashionable' but they do use them if they can use them 'more effectively'. FM should reflect reality by trying its best to replicate what is happening in real football.

Over time formations change within FM and trends change just like real life.

3)Shearer..great striker from long ago...Owen..great striker from ten years ago career destroyed by injury...Rooney great striker but has yet to produce on the international stage. My point was that great footballing nations always have a handful of great strikers. Now England have a large population. Why arent they producing world class players in the number that its population would expect? Might there not be a problem in development? Why can a small country like Holland produce loads of attacking world class players?

I would agree that England aren't developing as many good players currently as they should compared to other European nations. Hopefully that will change in the future as new ideas filter down to grassroots level.

4)FIFA rankings? Really? Really?? Hardly a credible authoritative source. If you believe England are sixth best in the world I respect your opinion but disagree with it.

The rankings are based on results not performances and England have gained their place on merit with good results over the last few years.

5)Im both English and Welsh. Im not sniping. This is a football forum...both for in game and real footballing. Its a valid criticism to claim that both the game and the forum are a bit too English-centric. If SI were based in Germany or Italy or Brazil then sure, they have the silverware to be (unintentionally) nationalistic in the way they present their home country in the game. England are a midlevel footballing nation and its recent results and current roster reflect this IMO. The game IMO overrates English players. Again, IMO its unintentional and a natural result of the game being British. I would expect to see the same thing if this were Basketball Manager and it were made by American developers.

Are they overrated? Thats down to an individuals opinion but I agree that a game made in the UK for a main market of the UK with UK fans rating the players there is the potential for an unintentional bias towards the home nations.

5)I disagree with SCIAG and yourself but I respect your opinions. They are highly selective IMO. That is an excellent thread. Doesnt it support my real life opinion on the state of English football? And if you add the injured players to the CA list it {from that thread} "England would have been rated more like Germany if Lampard, Ferdinand, Carrick and another 3.rd goalie than Butland had been included." England arent anywhere close to Germany IRL with those players. This also seems to support my opinion that the game overpowers England and English players.

If you look at the Euro 2012 squad you may feel that the players are overrated but 21 of the 23 man squad play for club teams in the top 8 of one of the best leagues in the world, that makes them fairly good IMO.

[aderow]

Judging by this thread it's very much a mixed bag.

Yep. It does seem that way based on what people have said in this thread. If England were winning everything in every save, then maybe there's a problem, but they are not. So I don't really see too much of a problem.

Its not the first time I've seen a thread about England being overrated and I am sure that it will not be the last. I think that attribute wise the english players look somewhat right. We have good players who just don't always show up for the national team. Something that happens in some saves but not in others.

I'm just tired of people seeing high numbers on attributes and automatically assuming that it makes said player better instead of actually considering what that attribute affects.

[deltablue]

I think that attribute wise the english players look somewhat right. We have good players who just don't always show up for the national team. Something that happens in some saves but not in others.

Spot on, the England team in recent years has very much been less than their sum of their parts. There are still some clearly better sides even on paper, but more frequent challenges and the occasional win aren't that unrealistic if the good quality of a lot of the team is reflected in game, and that remains reasonably consistent in newgens. With the massive number of saves going on at any one time at least some variations (which can be negative as well as positive) will occur, and speaking for myself I'm glad as I like playing long saves and seeing things change rather than see the game rigidly shackled to the present (since while things dont change as much as they used to, it still happens) real-life situation.

[Ackter]

The problem as I see it is that it's too easy to make an international team work.

National teams rarely play as well as club teams, but in the game its easy to recreate club success on an international stage.

[crouchaldinho]

1)My facts were straight. Since 1960 England have failed to qualify more times (4) than advance out of the group stage.

I can't do any better than Cougar here, so I'll just quote him:

I presume you are talking about just the European Championships here otherwise you must be living on another planet or just plain dumb.

Its fair to say they haven't been England's best results but since the expansion in 1996 England's record is one semi, one quarter, one group stage & one not qualified. The period 1996-2004 is by far Englands best tournaments and therefore their successes are not "Far into the Past"

As crouch has also pointed out you've chosen to ignore the other major international competition - The World Cup. This has been much more successful for England qualifying for 12 of the 16 tournaments they entered and advancing beyond the group stage 11 times.

"...if SI suddenly made certain formations more powerful than others due to what is more fashionable at the time or what is being used most effectively." I dont think managers in real life use formations because they are 'fashionable' but they do use them if they can use them 'more effectively'.

Fashionable may be the wrong word but certainly there is a clear history in football of one system being used in a successful way and then being copied by many other teams.

Football is a dynamic game and therefore suggesting that certain formations shouldn't work well in the match engine shows a primitive and poor understanding of football. And purely for the enjoyment factor of the game of Football Manager, employing such an ideawould be a disaster. The player should be able to design football formations without artificial restrictions on what 'should' work best in the match engine. Plus, who is to say that 4-4-2 or some variation on that shape won't emerge once again at the top of the game? In my opinion, many sides classified as playing 4-2-3-1 are extremely close to resembling a 4-4-2 formation anyway with players dropping in between the lines but often a very clear two banks of four approach when defending. Finally, 4-4-2 as currently 'designed' by the tactics creator sees a more modern system created anyway. Sure, you can build the system of old with two box-to-box types and two out and out forwards if you want. But the game encourages a modern take as a default setting with a forward dropping off in a supporting role and so on and so forth.

FM should reflect reality by trying its best to replicate what is happening in real football.

As I said above, 4-2-3-1 deep is actually the best formation to work with in the game, in my opinion.

But then every formation should work to some extent in FM unless it is something stupid like playing no centre-backs or midfielders!

A virtual Football Manager should be able to come in and build whatever he wants and, as long as he employs a bit of common footballing sense, it should work. Otherwise the game will be boring.

Why shouldn't I be the tactical genius who brings the WM back, for example!

FIFA rankings? Really? Really?? Hardly a credible authoritative source. If you believe England are sixth best in the world I respect your opinion but disagree with it.

It's always great to be selective when replying to someone!

Let's add some context, shall we? I was replying to your comment that: 'Since 1960 in WCs and Euros England have advanced out of group stage 3 times; they have failed to qualify 4 times..including Euro 2008.' You then told me that 'reality hurts'.

I corrected you and gave you a better idea of what the reality was for England:

Reality is sixth place in the FIFA rankings. Reality is qualifying for most of recent tournaments with 2008 and 1994 being the most recent exceptions. Reality is being a past World Cup winner. Reality is being a side who are usually qualifying for tournaments and often getting to Quarter-finals. Sometimes England overachieve (semi-finals, for example, or maybe even winners [1966 ]). Sometimes they won't do so well (1994 and 2008 spring to mind). And, as I said above, the experiences in this thread don't sound too unreasonable to me.

The game IMO overrates English players. Again, IMO its unintentional and a natural result of the game being British.

Well, they are doing a terrible job of overrating the English national team! If that's what SI were going for then I want my money back.

In my main save, now in the year 2022, England have basically achieved nothing more than a few second rounds and quarter final appearances in both the Euros and the World Cup!

I disagree with SCIAG and yourself but I respect your opinions.

You cannot disagree with us because you were basically wrong! Sorry but I can't spell this out clearly enough without sounding rude!

As SCIAG said, you can't say blatantly incorrect things like implying that not many English players play for the best English clubs.

Let's look at yesterday's starting XI versus France.

Joe Hart - Man City's number 1. Just won the Premier League title.

Glen Johnson - Premier League winner with Chelsea, now at Liverpool.

John Terry - Has won multiple Premier League titles, captain of Chelsea, part of Chelsea's European Cup winning team this season just gone.

Joleon Lescott - Just won the Premier League title at Manchester City.

Ashley Cole - Multiple Premier League winner at Arsenal and now Chelsea. Just won the European Cup.

James Milner - Just won the Premier League title at Manchester City.

Steven Gerrard - Captain at Liverpool and has won pretty much everything with them except the Premier League. Captained his side to the European Cup.

Scott Parker - Plays at Spurs, who finished 4th this season. Won the FWA player of the year award for the best season in English football last season.

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain - A youngster coming through at Arsenal (finished 3rd in the PL).

Ashley Young - Finished as runners-up in the PL this season with Man Utd.

Danny Welbeck - Another young player who finished as runners-up in the PL with Man Utd this season.

So, I mean, without being extremely rude about it, you couldn't be any more wrong. Basically nearly every player is playing for a top club and every player bar a couple of youngsters have a track record of success at the top of the game. Many of them are Premier League winners and some have won European Cups with their clubs.

Displaying basic ignorance as you have done above whilst at the same time posing as an 'expert' on the ills of the English national football team is the main reason I think that you're trolling. And surely you can understand why I would find it so frustrating to see someone say such basically incorrect things about my national football team? I'm not unrealistic about England, I'm not going to claim that we're world beaters, and I'm not going to argue that many things could change about the English game to improve the quality of young English players coming through. But I am going to take offence at petty comments from someone who is basically ignorant about my national team!

[Ackter]

No need to get worked up people.

If you think someone is trolling, ignore them and report the post.

[edgar555]

For the record England didn't enter the 1960 European Championship so anyone referencing that is wrong straight away.

[aderow]

The problem as I see it is that it's too easy to make an international team work.

National teams rarely play as well as club teams, but in the game its easy to recreate club success on an international stage.

I agree with that completely.

[crouchaldinho]

It does seem that way but then team gelling for international teams always seems to stay suitably low in order to reflect the nature of international football. Perhaps it doesn't make a significant enough difference on the International part of FM though as all teams are subject to the same conditions?

Whenever I've managed a national side, the team gelling has always been on one of the lowest points, no matter how long I've had the team together. I have found it a bit frustrating in the past actually as one approach I have used is to build a foundation around players from one or two clubs, so I was hoping that this might be reflected in the team gelling and give me a subtle advantage in international football.