It always fascinates me when articles refer to England's 1966 formation. At the time it was usually described as 4-3-3 which always puzzled me since there were only 2 strikers! This article describes it as 4-4-2 but it didnt bear any resemblance to the 4-4-2 that England currently play. It didnt have 2 out and out wide players in midfield (the popular headline at the time was "Ramsey's wingless wonders"icon_wink.gif.

I reckon Sir Alf actually invented the diamond. Stiles playing in front of the back four. Ball & Peters split right and left, occassionally getting out to the flanks (as when Ball created Hurst's 2nd "goal"icon_wink.gif but more often tucked inside. Charlton given more freedom to attack. The flexibility of Charlton, Ball & Peters made it a very fluid formation. And very different to the one with which Ramsey started the tournament.

Ramsey justifiably got credit for England winning the WC. But it always seemed to be for his leadership and man management skills. I dont think he ever received the credit he deserved for his tactical nous.

Is it me, or has the standard in these Euros been terrible?? 5 of the 8 Quarter Finalists are sh*te (or at least have been in this tournament so far).

Well Greece were. How did they expect to win playing like that?
They must have been watching England.
Sides that don't have a go at the risk of being outclassed deserve to lose. Also if a side can't hold the ball for half a dozen passes, what chance do they stand?
Sides that can't hold the ball for at least half a dozen passes need to go away and learn how to do it. And that includes England.
Which doesn't mean to say they can't win this thing, but the odds are stacked against them.

So sides like Portugal, Germany and Spain progress because they do have a go and have skill. And long may it continue.

I just don't think that England will ever learn that it is mainly about skill. Teach the kids skill for fook's sake.

I think it's been generally good. Who are the five sh*te teams you speak of? I imagine two of the sides you think have been good are Spain and Germany? Who's the other side?

IMO, the quality of games has been pretty consistent with recent international tournaments. It's obvious that the club game is now the pinnacle of football, the international tournaments just drag the season out for players who simply can't wait to go on holiday after a long season.

With regards to the tournament, with the exception of Greece and the Czechs, I think the rest of the teams have it in them to win the tournament. England are pretty average but it doesn't take greatness to win a tournament, Greece proven that and the Italians sort of did as well in 2006. I've enjoyed both of the QFs so far, they were both very one-sided but the quality of Germany and Portugal has been very good.

Germany, Spain and Portugal have been pretty good. Spain apparently had an off day against Croatia but were superb against Italy and Ireland. England have been below par, Greece are crap, the Czech Republic were poor, Italy have been below par and so have France. The next two QF's could well see the tournament kick off as they have the potential to be crackers but the group stages really didn't thrill me.

Thought the Germans done really well tonight, especially when you consider the dropped/rested their first choice front three. Rolls Reus was good, his finish was class. I think it's frightening how strong Germany's attacking options are, Gotze is better than any English player yet he's probably behind four players at the moment for a spot out wide, whilst he won't be replacing Ozil if he carries on like he did tonight. Boateng made a couple of bad mistakes, he fell asleep for the first but was unfortunate with the handball, but he still looked shaky. They don't seem to be getting out of third gear yet, yet they are coasting to victories and getting the bench players in on the act as well.

For me, Italy have been good but they aren't firing offensively. They're doing so much right but the end product isn't there at the moment, as I said, I think some people are forgetting how good they are (I'm not suggesting you are, I just think other people are). The French played pretty well against England without ever properly clicking, they done enough against Ukraine but apparently bombed against the Swedes. I still think there's potential for them to come out and truly dominate the tournament, but they lack the leadership that Zidane brought and their ego problems will more than likely derail their tournament.

With these tournaments being when they are, the chances of everybody playing top quality football are getting lower and lower. International breaks and so on are really extending seasons that are already long enough, the sport is becoming more and more demanding, which is resulting in players putting so much into their club seasons, they have very little left when it comes to the international calendar. I've enjoyed the tournament and tried to watch as much as possible, I agree it would be better if the Dutch and Croatians were there instead of the Greeks and Czechs, but that's the unfortunate situation with 'groups of death' and so on.

So [u[size=200IF[/size[/u england can navigate their way past italy, it set's up a mouth watering semi with the old enemy.....germany!

They'd be red hot favourites, which would suit us, but our record against them in major tournaments is not good.

We can beat them when our freedoms at risk, but not on a football field

I'm not sure how you can say that about Portugal?.....Yes, they have a go and show skill against opposition who they know they are superior or equal to, but, as proven against Germany, when up against better opponents, they revert to the negative, defensive football that you are criticising other sides for.

To be honest, I've nothing against sides who realise that there only chance of success is to set themselves up to be difficult to score against and just hope to pinch one themselves - Yes, it isn't pretty, but what would be the positive in going out there gung-ho and getting themselves battered?

As people have said before, football isn't just about attacking, surely good defence is as commendable as having your hopes dependant on the form of one man, which is definitely the case with the Portuguese?

What I don't understand is people's conception that you either play defensively or gung-ho. How often do people watch football when they come up with these ideas?

You can be sound defensively but counter attack with crisp, flowing play. Similarly, you can keep the ball and move it around without having to throw bodies into the box. There are many ways to play football, more than just Stoke or Spain, but some people seem to forget that, especially when it comes to defending those who play the worst football.

Agreed. All this romanticism about retaining possession is way over the top. It may be called the beautiful game but there's only so much stroking it around the park without creating something that one can put up with (and probably why the Germans are the most attractive team to watch in the comp). It's why RL is better because great defence in RL can be visually spectacular, whereas in football it can lead to too much stifling of attacking play.

Quote ="Roddy B"With these tournaments being when they are, the chances of everybody playing top quality football are getting lower and lower. International breaks and so on are really extending seasons that are already long enough, the sport is becoming more and more demanding, which is resulting in players putting so much into their club seasons, they have very little left when it comes to the international calendar.'" Did you read this? www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/l ... -out-shape

Quote ="Roddy B"With these tournaments being when they are, the chances of everybody playing top quality football are getting lower and lower. International breaks and so on are really extending seasons that are already long enough, the sport is becoming more and more demanding, which is resulting in players putting so much into their club seasons, they have very little left when it comes to the international calendar.'" Did you read this? www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/l ... -out-shape

It's you. Two poor games so far: France v England and Czechs v Portugal, but even those had their moments.

Quote ="McClennan"Did you read this? www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/l ... -out-shape'" No, but it's a good read.

Quote ="McClennan"Did you read this? www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/l ... -out-shape'" No, but it's a good read.

I actually agree, although I haven't seen every game due to work. The game between Italy and Spain was outstandingly good.

I think the standard has been high so far, certainly better than the last world cup.

Wouldn't go so far as to say terrible, but it's been a disappointment. I've actually lost interest to a certain extent as I've been unimpressed by the vast majority of sides. Germany are head and shoulders above the rest IMO.

Spain line up with no centre forward again.

I don't see why everyone jizzes themselves over spains football. A million intricate 2 yard passes resulting in one chance is not my idea of good football when the germans can create the same chance in less than 20 passes.

Germans more direct approach, for me, is more enjoyable to watch.

You're entitled to your opinion, but have a think about it for a second. As somebody tweeted the other day: "In fifty years time: How good were Spain, grandad? Oh, I don't know. I spent my life arguing they were dull."

They don't just pass it to create, they keep the ball so they can't be punished; their strength is their passing.

Its the Spanish way. Martinez at Wigan always says the same about keeping the ball. They csnt score and eventually you will get the chances. For most of the season it didnt work but when it dion that run we had we were sublime at times.

I never said they were dull.

I said i prefer watching germanys style.

Any opinion i have is going to be based on what i feel now, and not what i might say to grandkids in half a century.

One thing for you to contemplate, is in 50 years when your grandkids ask you how good a manager roy hodgson was?

was he better than king kenny grandad?

France, another side hoping, just hoping for a break.
Rubbish! All sides who play like that deserve to LOSE!
And so they are behind 1-0.
And similarly England will come and play with the same stupid mentality tomorrow.
I hope not!

It's easy to see why people will call it dull, but that, IMO, is down to the approach of the opposition - whenever people now see Spain play it is in a tournament and the opponents (even good teams like France now) invariably have 9 or 10 players behind the ball at all times - which doesn't make for the most entertaining of games. Del Bosque's current favouring of a false 9 and no real forward width don't help in that regard.

A Spain/Germany final would be interesting because I'd like to see if, at the third time of asking, Jogi Low has found the right team & balance to beat them, I also think Del Bosque has the personnel in his squad (Navas, Llorente, Cazorla Negredo)to be able to change things if they do though he seems stubbornly unwilling to do so.

And I'd turn around and say "Roy managed for fourty years but never made much of an impression. Kenny only managed for a few years but he won the league four times and probably would have won something in Europe had there not been a ban in place. Roy was probably the worst Liverpool manager I ever had the misfortune of seeing."

Their passing is their defence.