It's funny, I don't recall too many people saying England had it easy when they got to semi finals 28 years ago. The group with Holland, Ireland, & Egypt, might have been harder, but the fact that 4 of the best 3rd placed sides got through meant that there was little chance of England not qualifying for the knock-out stages. The Belgium side we scraped past in the last 16 were not a patch of the side that plays France tonight in the other semi-final, & then we struggled to beat the mighty Cameroon in the quarter finals. We had some world class players back then too - Shilton, Butcher, Gascoigne, Lineker - but our path to getting to the semi finals was nowhere near as impressive as it has been this time. The first World Cup I remember was back in 1970. I was heartbroken when we let a 2-0 lead slip to West Germany in the quarter finals, & ever since then I've become accustomed to countless England sides letting the country down time & again on the big stage. There's still a strong feeling that when push comes to shove we'll fall short, but up to now, even for an old cynic like me, it's been a great ride, & the players - most who are not household names - deserve tremendous credit, along with manager Gareth Southgate. Whatever happens from here-on-in, this England side have far exceeded everyone's expectations.
The "England have had it easy" narrative
- Thread starter Alex99
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This is where I am on this, based mainly on the suspicion England teams of the past would have choked on even this eminently manageable path to the semi. It's worth saying that those without skin in the game will be able to appraise things more rationally and so their 'easy, super duper easy why aren't you seeing this?!' becomes '*breathes through teeth like a disgruntled plumber* manageable but potentially tricky, particularly for historic chokers such as ourselves' in the minds of England fans.
The issue for the majority, the occasional genuine anti-Englander and tin hat-wearing Englishman aside, is that we're looking at what we've agreed is a superb draw for England from different points of view and so have come to somewhat different conclusions. That's it really.
Last edited:
You were incorrect, this is a terrible save face attempt. Korea knocked Germany out after Germany had beaten Sweden.
Some of you have descended to a parody of yourselves. Look at the lengths some are going to to contradict some people's opinions that it was an easy run. Ask yourself, why does it bother you so much? Its unsettling. Its a fair position even if you disagree.
Posts of biblical length complete with hypothetical draws
The averaging of the dubious fifa rankings
Poster history searched for contradiction
Calling people sad bitter or anti English
Its like theres an angry little terrorist group at work because some posters think it was a bloody easy runabsolute meltdown level
The absolute state of you posting in cahoots and pre empting replies like teenage girls bevause i had the nerve to say it was an easy run. Pathetic
Snowflake alert
Nah, your 1990 NT was class and, alongside Germany, the best team to watch in a tournament where there was drama but most games were absolute bore fests. Your games, on the contrary, in the knock-outs were freaking great to watch. Belgium had a very strong team and Cameroon actually was fecking mighty in that WC. In both those games, England's resilience was really put to the test and they showed great character and survival instincts. And you were better than Germany for the most part of the 120 minutes of the SF. Lastly, if i remember correctly, it was important to finish first in your group in order to avoid Italy in the QF. In the end, you looked like you could go all the way in a tournament where both Germany and Italy had great sides and Argentina had Maradona and their "i refuse to die" attitude was simply astonishing. The absence of such a team is what makes it look "easier" this time around for England. I mean, look at the Belgium-Brazil game. Belgium did everything right, went 2-0 up and, at one point, it looked like they would advance to the SF quite comfortably. But Brazil had still fight in them, they pushed really hard to the point where you could see that Belgium's players started looking overwhelmed and, you could sense while watching the game that, if Brazil equalized, there would be no turning back for Belgium. Now, Sweden and Columbia, despite all their good efforts, could not offer something like that. Part of it is because England have been great thus far: A manager that has finally incorporated many aspects of 3/4 best managers in the PL plans (Klopp's pressing and aim to win second balls, Pep's tendency to utilize two 8/10's in a three-man midfield, Poch's 352 with focus on the WBs to add numbers to the midfield battle) instead of trying to fit everybody in an atrocious 442-ish formation. A good gameplan that emphasizes on good off the ball movement and players who look comfortable and play with a smile on their faces. As a result of this progress, very few people can't see England as good enough to win it. But nevertheless, it's relatively "easier" to test this progress against Sweden and Croatia than against Brazil and France. And that's why England chose that path and no one can blame them for doing so.
This is about it really.
There's no stake, no emotional investment for most of us who think England have had an easy run. It doesn't make us anti-English.
Indeed, and I'm not saying England fans are wrong to think the way they're thinking. I've always thought football fandom is when all's said and done irrational; superstition and past experiences play huge roles and odd things happen inside the tent that those outside just cannot experience in the same way.
That said the amount of genuinely rabid anti-England sentiment on here is low, the distinction between easy and easier is pretty distinctive but ultimately of little consequence and this thread has been a very fun read.
Excellent post.
The mythical ABE can actually be described only as ABE. I mean, I have to fecking defend England on this forum, after being called repeatedly that I hate England during the years from multiple posters because I dared to find hilarious the hilarious way England got eliminated all the time.
However, this time there is nothing to laugh when it comes to England, the team is likeable and is playing pretty good. Yet people have started this nonsense that England had it so easy because they didn't have to face giants like Argentina, Italy, Holland, Spain or Germany, teams that with all respect to them, are fecking shit and worse than what England had to face based on both my eyes, those teams bombing and FIFA coefficients. There is nothing objective in 'England had it easy' bar a sense of belittling England's biggest achievement in almost 30 years.
However, this time there is nothing to laugh when it comes to England, the team is likeable and is playing pretty good. Yet people have started this nonsense that England had it so easy because they didn't have to face giants like Argentina, Italy, Holland, Spain or Germany, teams that with all respect to them, are fecking shit and worse than what England had to face based on both my eyes, those teams bombing and FIFA coefficients. There is nothing objective in 'England had it easy' bar a sense of belittling England's biggest achievement in almost 30 years.
I've read a lot that this team is the most likeable in ages. I find it impossible to either like or dislike them. To a man they are as dull as dishwater! This teams needs a JT-type dickhead.
They're hard-working relatively young players, not dickhead superstars like Gerrard, Terry or Rooney were. An improvement.
Although Kane became a joke personality with that goal last season.
yes they did and yes it was an easier route, the World Cup like the CL and any similar tournament has always a huge element of luck related to draws, who and when you face it. Ultimately it will always be a huge achievement if you win it. England can only play the opponents she gets so well done. In any case Croatia is a very strong team so winning with them is a challenge.
The debate over the easier or harder route is useless.
This is exactly the type of thing that a pathetic hypersensitive extremist would say.
Now run along with your balaclava, baseball bat and angry glasses and leave the debating to fully objective and balanced individuals like me.
Am I doing this right?
Yeah, I agree that averaging the ranks is stupid.
I didn't really mean anything in particular by it. I saw someone earlier mention something about the teams England have played being more their level and threw it in there because it was somewhat relevant to the level of consistency giving England a lower average ranked opponent than Belgium.
My point regarding Argentina was just linking it back to the original point of the thread, whereby the main claim is England haven't played anyone good because the gut-feeling is Argentina are a much better side than Sweden and Colombia, despite evidence being very much to the contrary.
I think it's the QF v Sweden that gave England's path the perception of "easiness".
English people would be forgiven for thinking that Sweden is not an easy prospect. Our record against them is abysmal and they decimated Mexico as well as beating Switzerland in regulation time (I thought the Swiss would win handily). In fact I was so concerned about Sweden that in my head I thought they were favourites. That speaks more to my learned pessimsm for the England NT than anything else.
England beating Sweden with relative ease is such an unenglish thing to do. You look at who they put out of the world cup and think "why didn't other teams just do what england did" and you start realizing it's because England is actually better than they have been for quite some time. It's nice to see.
With that said, the path to the semis is easier than it could have been, that's for sure.
English people would be forgiven for thinking that Sweden is not an easy prospect. Our record against them is abysmal and they decimated Mexico as well as beating Switzerland in regulation time (I thought the Swiss would win handily). In fact I was so concerned about Sweden that in my head I thought they were favourites. That speaks more to my learned pessimsm for the England NT than anything else.
England beating Sweden with relative ease is such an unenglish thing to do. You look at who they put out of the world cup and think "why didn't other teams just do what england did" and you start realizing it's because England is actually better than they have been for quite some time. It's nice to see.
With that said, the path to the semis is easier than it could have been, that's for sure.
Sweden were arguably a more well-functioning unit than Argentina, but Argentina quite evidently have much, much more talent than them if you look at their side. Sweden played well as a team at times but their individual quality was astonishingly average for a side in the QF's.
That would be you and 3 others.
This narrative is only funny because it was the English 'journos' slagging off Belgium when they were, apparently, doing their utmost to finish second in the group just to have an easier route later on.
Can I just make the point in response to this that I don't see much point including the Pot 4 teams, and a fair few of the Pot 3 teams too, when we're discussing the difficulty of the draw a team has had? Gone are the days where the pots are divided geographically. The big point being made about England is how weak people consider Colombia, Sweden and Croatia. As pessimistic as I was going into the tournament, there would have rightly been outcry if England had failed to progress ahead of Tunisia and Panama. At the end of the day, all of the Pot 1 and 2 teams would have fancied themselves to finish ahead of the Pot 3 and 4 teams, and for the most part, that's what happened.
Group A - Egypt being especially shite and Saudi Arabia being just about as shite as expected paved the way for a, perhaps surprisingly, good Russia to finish second behind Uruguay. Pot 2 team finished 1st, Pot 1 team finished 2nd.
Group B - Spain were only in Pot 2 because Russia, as hosts, were taking a space in Pot 1. Morocco and Iran looked okay, but both Spain and Portugal looked fairly lacklustre. Ultimately though, Pot 2 team finished 1st, Pot 1 team finished 2nd.
Group C - Group favourites and Pot 1 team France finished as fairly comfortable group winners. As with Spain, Denmark were only in Pot 3 because of Russia's place in Pot 1, so it wasn't much of a surprise when they finished ahead of the Pot 2 side, Peru, to take second. Pot 1 team finished 1st, Pot 3 team finished 2nd, Pot 2 team finished 3rd.
Group D - Iceland were perhaps worse than expected, but the bigger surprise in this group was how poor Argentina looked. Still, Pot 2 Croatia capitalised and stormed the group, and Pot 1 Argentina, despite being poor, finished second. Pot 2 team finished 1st, Pot 1 team finished 2nd.
Group E - Pot 1 Brazil won the group fairly comfortably, and Pot 2 Switzerland didn't have much trouble securing second. Serbia who, like Spain and Denmark, were dropped into Pot 4 because of Russia being in Pot 1, finished 3rd. Pot 1 team finished 1st, Pot 2 team finished 2nd.
Group F - The first group with any real surprises. A torrid German performance paved the way for the other sides to go for qualification. Pot 3 Sweden topped the group, with Pot 2 Mexico taking second. Pot 3 team finished 1st, Pot 2 team finished 2nd.
Group G - I think this was the only "as expected" group in the tournament. Pot 4 Panama lost every game, Pot 3 Tunisia beat Pot 4 Panama but lost their other games, Pot 2 England beat the Pot 3 & 4 teams but lost to Pot 1 Belgium, who topped the group with three wins from three. Pot 1 team finished 1st, Pot 2 team finished 2nd.
Group H - The closest to a "group of death" the tournament provided, but more because of Poland's gaming of the ranking system getting them into Pot 1 than anything else. Poland being rubbish saw Pot 2 Colombia take 1st, and Pot 3 Senegal found themselves missing out on second on fair play rules, meaning the spot went to Pot 4 Japan. Pot 2 team finished 1st, Pot 4 team finished 2nd.
Six of eight Pot 1 teams progressed through the groups, and seven of eight Pot 2 teams progressed. Of the three teams from outside the top two pots that made it out of the groups, one was Denmark, who would have been a Pot 2 team if it weren't for Russia. The others were Sweden, also from Pot 3, capitalising on the poor form from the Pot 1 team in their group, and the other Japan from Pot 4, who came from perhaps the weakest overall group, and they only finished ahead of the Pot 3 team by virtue of having fewer yellow cards.
Saudi Arabia were shite, Egypt somehow worse. Iran and Morocco looked okay, but perhaps benefited from the poor form of the Pot 1 and 2 teams they were grouped with, ultimately still finishing behind them. Australia were plucky, but ultimately a bit rubbish. Iceland were woeful, and Nigeria, though plucky, weren't too hot either. Serbia and Costa Rica were both mediocre. South Korea, again, plucky, historic win over Germany, lost to the other two teams ranked ahead of them. Tunisia and Panama fell pretty much where they were expected to, despite the displays of shithousery. Mix about any of those teams to put them in different groups and I'm not convinced the teams progressing would have been much different, Germany perhaps the only benefactors had South Korea been replaced by Panama, Australia or Saudi Arabia.
Is this not a big part of the issue people have though? England fans have been reminded for nigh on two decades that individual quality doesn't necessarily make a good team, with sides containing a number of top class players at the peak of their game, repeatedly under performing in major tournaments. Wayne Rooney, David Beckham, Steven Gerrard, Paul Scholes, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Michael Owen, Sol Campbell, Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, hell, even the likes of Gary Neville, Jamie Carragher, and Owen Hargreaves, if not considered world class, were all considered incredibly good, all represented England around the same periods, and were all part of disappointing tournament performances, with it being considered arrogance to assume the team was better because the names in it were more glamorous.
Suddenly England beat a side with direct involvement in the elimination of Netherlands, Italy, and Germany, that trounced a Mexico side that knew defeat could well see them eliminated, and beat a Switzerland side that held its own against Brazil, but that side still has to be considered markedly worse than an Argentina side that got beat by Ecuador and Bolivia, drew twice with Venezuela, and got battered by Brazil during the qualifiers, only securing qualification in the last game, drew with a poor Iceland, got battered by Croatia, and scraped a late win against a fairly mediocre Nigeria to make it to the knockout stages, purely because it's Argentina and they have a few big name players.
I don't understand why anybody would have an issue either way. If you support England then why wouldn't you want / be able to admit that the draw has been favorable.
On the flip side, if you support anyone else why would you care? You have to beat what's in front of you regardless.
Also, arguably the only team left in the competition that has had a real difficult run of games so far is France.
All anybody will remember in another 10 years is that England got to (at least) a semi-final.
On the flip side, if you support anyone else why would you care? You have to beat what's in front of you regardless.
Also, arguably the only team left in the competition that has had a real difficult run of games so far is France.
All anybody will remember in another 10 years is that England got to (at least) a semi-final.
There is no perception of easiness. England had an easy route to the finals although it wasn't their fault. Surely they couldn't not lent lingod for their match against the mighty south Korea. Any lunatic saying I'd rather play south Korea because they beat Germany instead of the Krauts deserve to be treated for what they are.. Morons.
Nice to see the coach of Croatia having a bit of respect for the other teams in the competition, not writing them off as "piss easy" opponents or anything like that. I'm sure you'd agree. Apologies in advance for triggering you.
Im not sure you are trolling like you normally do in the Klopp threads where you insist he is a charlatan
You'd rather play Gemranu than Sotun Korea?
I don't think many, if any England fans actually care about the actual difficulty of the draw. The issues, I think, are:
a) the hypocrisy of the now decades long criticism of England's apparent arrogance for thinking they're a good team because "they're England" and they have some "big names" in the squad, when objectively poor Argentina, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Netherlands sides are being heralded as footballing elite because of who they are and the names in their squad
b) the feeling that opinion on England's opponents is being dramatically shifted after England beat them in veiled attempt to discredit England's performances and by extension, merit as world cup semi-finalists
While I don't really care because I'm having the time of my life with the world cup, it is tiring to be met with the same responses when expressing any genuine joy at how England have performed.
"I can't believe England are in the semi-finals," is met with, "you're only there because everyone you've played is shit."
I imagine Liverpool fans found it increasingly frustrating to repeatedly hear how easy their CL run was despite ultimately not caring because they were in the final. That's what's happening here.
He is a fraud though. And England have had a favourable but still difficult draw.
For all your fawning over them here Sweden's WC performance isn't that much markedly better than Argentina's. They got two more points than them in the group stage, and were eliminated in the last 16 narrowly by a France side who're now favourites for the tournament and who'd have probably battered Sweden if they met them at the same stage. Sweden still lost to Germany in the groups and just scraped by a fairly crap Italy side. The fact they qualified ahead of the Netherlands isn't that impressive considering they've been poor as of late as well.
Argentina were poor for their standards in qualification but were evidently still good enough to get through in a competitive group of teams that Sweden would've faced a lot of difficulty against had they been involved in it.
Sweden certainly aren't an awful side - they were an effective unit who did well to reach this stage, but as far as knockout stage opponents go they were consummately weaker than the Brazil and Portugal teams England came up against at the same stage in 2002 and 2006, or the Germany side that trounced them in the last 16 in 2010.
Again, none of this is intended to completely discredit England because they've done well to get to where they are, and a lesser England side would've found a way to make a hash of it, but it remains a valid point to observe that they've got an easy run by avoiding the three tournament favourites from the final eight in the QF's and SF's, and that while they've produced some good football at times they've not really put in a remarkable performance that makes them look like anything resembling tournament winners.
Yes, difficult compared to Saudi Arabia coz they are shit.
I’m sure we can find plenty of posts from you, shouting down their critics and defending their achievements if we look hard enough, right?
I'm not saying the Swedish team are incredible, but they were very efficient if a bit uninspiring in their run to the QF, including during the qualifiers. I expected England to beat them and considered England favourites, but I thought the game would be much closer than it was.
I agree that Netherlands and Italy are both poor. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed that out to the people who've named them as teams England have been lucky to avoid.
Germany did beat Sweden, narrowly, through a moment of magic, in the first of two do or die games for Germany. Germany also lost to South Korea and Mexico, both of which Sweden beat comfortably, the latter 3-0.
I think it's also worth noting that this Sweden side beat France in qualifying.
Teams got knocked out with 4 points, Argentina's haul. No team was knocked out with 6 points. The difference there, although 2 points, is huge.
You also couldn't swap Sweden and Argentina because even without the pots separating them, that draw is impossible due to the maximum number of UEFA nations allowed in a group. However, I don't think it's at all controversial to suggest that Sweden would have beaten both Iceland and Nigeria given their comfortable victories over Mexico and South Korea.
I agree that the Germany side that knocked England out in 2010 and the Portugal side that knocked them out in 2006 were better than Sweden, but I also think this England side would have fared much better against those sides. Conversely, I think the England sides of 2006 through 2016 would have struggled firstly against Tunisia, and would likely have never seen Sweden in the QF because they'd have been knocked out by Colombia. If they had made it to the QF, they certainly wouldn't have been winning comfortably, if at all.
The point, which you seem to have missed here, is that beating the Argentina or Germany sides of this World Cup would not have been any more of a mark of England's quality than beating the Colombia and Sweden sides that they did, and to repeatedly suggest that it would because they're Argentina and Germany and not Colombia and Sweden just ignores the evidence presented to us about the abilities of those teams, regardless of the individuals within them.
Well no because Liverpool are shit and had an easy run to the CL final. Rostov, Anderlecht, Celta Vigo and Ajax are much better than United, Dortmund, Villarreal and Sevilla. Sevilla are also much better than Porto, City and Roma.
None of this means I can't be insufferable in defense of the team I support when people are telling me they're shit and the teams they've played are shit. It's football, innit?
Like a few other people on here, I wonder if you're taking a sense of persecution from Twitter and bringing it onto the caf, where you're not actually being persecuted?
You usually get a tonne of different opinions on here, including loads of extreme/weird ones. Despite this, I reckon we'd struggle to find any posts that say a) England are shit or b) all the teams they've played are shit.
The consensus seems to be much more along the lines of England have done very well and exceeded expectations so far (expectations of most England fans too) but they've had a relatively easy draw and been fortunate in getting to a semi-final without playing a single team from the very top tier of international football. You're obviously finding it hard to disagree with any of this, so instead seem to be taking aim at straw men (England are shit, they've only played shit teams) that are either a figment of your imagination, or the ramblings of idiots on Twitter.
I just want to add that for me, I felt Argentina's performance against France was at least a level or two more dangerous than anything Sweden played in the tournament. I personally was not all that impressed with Sweden this WC and felt they were one of the luckier quarter-finalists in World Cup history. I personally would choose to face that Sweden side 10 times out of 10 over that Argentina side. Even though they are unbalanced and could never find their rhythm, they still have game changing players like Aguero and Higuain not to mention Messi. The fact they came back 3-4 against France showed a side capable of more than what I saw from Sweden. I think Sweden would have lost 4-0 had they played France R16.
@fishfingers15 apologies for the typos, but are you saying that you would rather play Germany than South Korea?
I don't know of any Englishman who would ever choose something so bizarre, especially given our history against Germany. The luckiest thing to happen to England this tournament was Germany being so rubbish. We would have played them had they topped their group. With that said, we have been indisputably better than Germany this time round so the match would be far from a foregone conclusion.
Exactly. There's a strong argument that England would've beaten Germany this time. If we had a tournament starting next week and had the choice of facing Germany I don't hink too many would shy from it. Now would be a perfect time to take them on and lay to rest a few ghosts.
I'm really happy about the World Cup. The whole country as a whole seems more optimistic. Combined with the weather and some recent good news at work, I'm incredibly happy right now.
Basically if you think it's easy - that's great it probably is easier than we could have dreamed of.
If you're getting wound up by people saying it is easy - don't let it bother you. Who honestly cares.
21 pages of this!
Basically if you think it's easy - that's great it probably is easier than we could have dreamed of.
If you're getting wound up by people saying it is easy - don't let it bother you. Who honestly cares.
21 pages of this!
Sweden are pretty shite let’s all just be honest here. After all, honesty is the best policy.
Has losing a World Cup game ever been as beneficial?
I’m with ya Twiggy. That’s a cracking speech, you should be proud.
Cheers Robbie, you're a good lad. Always said that deep down. If anything in your rise to Redcafe stardom your 15,000 posts have been slightly easy and I'd have liked to see you challenging yourself a bit more, but you're still in the top 5% of posters here so you should be proud.
Not that I can remember, which is probably why Southgate picked a team he knew would lose.
Wow, coming from Caf royalty like yourself, this is an absolute honour.
I do see where you’re coming from with the whole challenging myself part, I’ll endeavor as of today, to challenge myself in the more polemic Caf threads.