To ask why the England team (the men) keep falling at the final hurdle, (well virtually at the final hurdle,) at the football World Cup ... and The Euros too?

[GorgeousSpringtime]

Not an England-team bashing thread, but why, oh WHY do they - the men - keep falling at the final hurdle (well, virtually the final hurdle,) every time at the football (soccer) World Cup - and the Euro Cup too...?

They do so well, and get so far, and then BANG they're out. Nearly always in the top 8, or top 4, (and the top 2, in the World Cup once, and a couple of times in the Euros I think,) but never the winner. (Not since 1966 anyway!)

Is it nerves? Is it that they're so anxious to win that they keep making silly mistakes? Are they just not quite good enough? WHAT IS IT? Why do they keep getting so close, but just never manage to get the win?!

As I said, I am not bashing them, and they did well, and I am proud of them, but I just get so frustrated that they can't quite ever get the win!

!

Top four in the world is alright isn't it?. There were a lot more than four teams in the competition.

Because, despite the fact that this game is elevated to cult level and a tedious national obsession, we are really not very good at it.

The Lionesses have acquitted themselves better on the international stage but this apparently makes some men rather cross. They are quick to point out how much 'better' the men's team/game are and that the women can't beat an adolescent boys' team. Well, no. For the simple explanation that the average strength of a 12-year-old boy is equal to the strength of an adult female. Which is the obvious reason why there's a men's game and a women's game.

Had England won their supporters would have been absolutely insufferable.

I think Top 4 in the world doesn't make us "not very good". If I was 4th best at anything in the world I'd consider myself to be very good indeed and would be proud of that!

Because they are not as good as teams like Argentina....

I think the England team always has a couple of really good individual players but as a team they are simply not able to take the pressure and reach a final.

I can't help but think that they lack that extra magic and motivation that makes a winning team.

They bottle it at the last minute and the defence has always been weak.

I don't really follow football but all my memories of England playing since 1996 seem to invovle there being a 'star player' and if they didn't play, got injured etc then that was it. I was wondering if this was just the media wanting to play up a 'hero' or reality.

No but there's something called 'hope'. I'll bet you that the Norwegian team weren't there with the attitude of seeing how far they'd get. They'd have hoped they could lift the cup and quite rightly. A defeatist attitude is pointless.

Well, as I said further up, I don't know anything at all about football, but it must certainly be a unique sport if being in the Top 4 teams in the world makes you weak.

Out of interest, who else isn't very good? Is it just 4th and under, or are 3rd and second considered good? Or is there only one good team in the whole world and they are the current cup holders?

Only the winners emerge with any respect apparently, everyone else has failed. They've all bottled it. Imagine being "not very good" when you're at least the 4th best in the world. Ludicrous.

Words fail me 😅😅

England don't "fall at the final hurdle", they fall as soon as they play a top team.

It's happened in every single tournament. Cruise through qualifying beating teams ranked in the 30s, 40s, 50s and lower, then same at the Finals, then as soon as they run into another top 6 team - Out

England have one solitary win over a top-10 team in their entire history of World Cup Finals participation. This was the 1966 Final at Wembley. FIFA only started ranking teams officially in the 1990s, but by using ELO you can apply the same thing to historical teams. So that's 60 years and counting since England beat a top-10 side at a World Cup, something they had never managed before and haven't managed since.

The Euros record is similar, having never beaten a top 6 ranked side in the entire history of that competition either.

I think it's about perception. England is a large nation with a huge football following and a league awash with money, so the perception is that England's national team should be competitive with Brazil, Argentina, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the historical "top" sides, when in actual fact if you look as comparative achievement, then England's peers are Greece, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia.

The England men's team has never, at any point in the history of the sport, been a truly top tier side, so it's the expectations that are out of whack with reality.

They’re just not good enough at the end of the day. Which is quite pitiful really considering the obscene amount of money pumped into making them good.

Sums it up. 🤣🤣

No it never said failed.

The money comes from the income they produce. Millions and millions from tickets, merchandise, and advertising

Well, as I said further up, I don't know anything at all about football, but it must certainly be a unique sport if being in the Top 4 teams in the world makes you weak.

The issue is, the way ranking points work, you can elevate yourself into the top 10, top 5 or whatever simply by battering much poorer teams in Qualifying. This is how England got there.

The problem comes when you have to play other top teams. Like I posted above, in competitive Finals matches, England have one solitary World Cup win over a top-10 ranked side in the entire history of the World Cup, and have never beaten a top-6 team in the European Championship Finals.

"England ranked 4th" is a totally false picture of reality.

For example, prior to the World Cup Morocco were ranked 5th, Brazil 6th. Brazil were beaten in the last 16 by Norway, Morocco went down in the Quarters to France. Both of those teams also achieved their ranking by beating vastly inferior teams, only to be found out when they actually had to play good ones.

It's the post mortem I can't stand. It's a football tournament. Ergo, only one team can win it. Out of 48 teams (a lot more if you count the qualifying rounds) we came 4th; possibly 3rd. (I'd normally write us off in the 3rd place playoff, but I think France have suffered greater psychological damage than we have). 3rd/4th in the world is something we should be pleased with, not whinging about. I just hope Spain do the world a favour in the final and give the graceless, classless Argentine team a thorough beating.

I'm a huge rugby fan not a football fan but did watch the match. I was very puzzled at the tactics once England scored - instead of going all out to get another goal or two there seemed to be a 'job done, now lets defend this lead' mentality. Once they did that the game ran away from them.

I do think there is a massive pressure on the players to be the ones to 'bring it home and end 60 years of hurt' which may weigh on them as well (mind you the same happens to any British tennis player at Wimbledon).

It could be of course that they are simply not as good as the Argentinians, who once they stopped trying to kick the shit out of the English players looked pretty skillful. Hopefully Spain will beat the dirty cheaters.

I'm also very hopeful that the England rugby team are successful at the weekend against the Pumas to get some sort of revenge

Many countries spend vast amounts of money and have a great grassroot system. Men's football is just that popular.

Maybe in some countries similar money goes further and elevate the talent from wider part of the population.

It just seems that the UK is used to being the ultimate powerhouse - but with bigger part of the world becoming relevant, it just can't last, it's mathematically impossible.

Isn't France specifically succesfull in naturalising talents from the african countries with french connections?

Women's sport is the good one to enjoy a few years of the highest relevance, before more countries catch up.

@randomchap

yep. Still doesn’t change the fact that they’re not good enough to win though!

Well exactly. Apparently they have an 'obscene amount of money pumped into them' that should make them good! Not quite sure how reaching the semis of the world cup isn't 'good'.

The argis are a load of tiny men who are indeed very fast and seem to rely on fouls. I hope they win and get their raggy bed sheet out again with another fake claim bless them.

Isn’t it obvious. They’re a brilliant team that made it a lot further than most but they’re not best in world.

We could still beat France and be 3rd best

"England ranked 4th" is a totally false picture of reality.

Yet strangely consistent with our perfomance over the past 3 world cups (semi-quarter-semi) and in the Euros (finalists in the past two tournaments).

Top 4 at the world cup. That's not bad at all.

Yes, it's disappointing that they didn't win.

If you want to celebrate a winning England team then there's always the women's. Can't wait for 2027.