England 96 v present day - TalkSoccer

**Olzy** · 04-09-2007, 10:45 AM

Saw this on teamtalk:

"Everyone needs to realise England have a very average team. This team is dubbed the golden generation. Nochance Look at the 96team/squad. Seaman better than Robbo, Terry is a poor mans Tony Adams, Campbell better than Rio, Pearce better than Cole, Gazza better than Lampard, Ince did more fot England than Gerrard, Mcmannaman better than Cole, Sherear and Sheringham alot better combanation than Owen and Rooney. Not only that we had L.Ferdinand, Fowler, Wright and Cole as backup. They played simple football to feet playing in triangles. None of these stupid stepovers that J.Cole does. No long balls, just proper football. The England team should watch the 96 game against Holland and realise just how normall they are. They are overpayed normall players. "

What do you make of these comparisons?

NJ10 · 05-09-2007, 12:24 PM

Terry is not a "poor man's Tony Adams" in any way. They are both excellent defenders and great leaders.

Campbell wasnt a key player in the Euro 96 squad, and no way was the Campbell of 96 better than the Ferdinand of today. Campbell 98 maybe.

Gascoigne was pillorised in the press and fans after the Switzerland game of 96, they didnt want him in the side, they felt he was past his best, too slow. Even against Scotland prior to his wondergoal he had done fuck all, tbh he didnt do a lot against Spain or Germany either actually (except bury his pens fair play). No way was Gazza 96 a better player than Lampard 2007. No way.

Ince did more for England than Gerrard is debatable. I think people's perception of Ince as an England hero stems from his blood stained bandage in the Italy qualifier. Gerrard is a far more complete and talented midfielder. Ince never scored in a major championship, Gerrard has scored in two, and Ince would have been dropped in Euro 2000 if Gerrard's calf hadnt packed in after the Germany game.

i do agree on the strikers. Shearer, Sheringham, Cole, Ferdinand, Fowler, Wright, Collymore, Beardsley. Thats some strength in depth. But look at the centre half options we have today (if fit)- Terry, Ferdinand, Campbell, King, Richards, Woodgate, Lescott, Dawson, Brown, Taylor coming through, Carragher retired it seems. When you think that Englands squad for Euro 96 included Steve Howey, it brings home how lucky we are to have such good defenders available.

Same goes for midfield. McManaman better than Cole is a debatable one, certainly for England. McManaman is a hero of mine from my childhood, but he never set the world alight for England, Cole has established himself as one of our better players. Tell me which of the current crop Darren Anderton is better than btw?? Look at the strength of our wingers- Lennon, SWP, Bentley, Beckham, even Pennant are all better than Anderton or Steve Stone ever was.

one notable comparison is the fact that neither our current squad, nor the Euro 96 one, includes a decent left footed midfielder. sad really.

**LAF** · 05-09-2007, 05:28 PM

I was actually thinking this the other day after I heard somebody on the radio use the silly "golden generation" tag.

imo I'd have the 96 team any day. The only player I'd swap would be Gerrard.

NJ10 · 05-09-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAF

I was actually thinking this the other day after I heard somebody on the radio use the silly "golden generation" tag.

imo I'd have the 96 team any day. The only player I'd swap would be Gerrard.

this has got me thinking.

--------------------Seaman----------------------

Neville-------Terry---------Adams---------Pearce

Beckham----Gerrard-----Ince-------------J Cole

---------------Rooney------Shearer--------------

yeah the SAS was great in Euro 96, but imagine Rooney and Big Al!!!!! it would be amazing.

also, Ferdinand & Cole are pretty close to overtaking the Pearce & Adams of 96. only sentiment has stopped me from putting them in.

one things for sure, the England 96 team had a far superior coach. Venables had a style of play, and he knew how to use it. McClaren has a barely settled on a style of suit....

MUMUFMUFCOK! · 05-09-2007, 05:40 PM

In terms of individual talent, this crop of players absolutely shits all over the team of 1996. No question about that.

**LAF** · 05-09-2007, 05:43 PM

They were a better team aswell (96). Balance like you've never had since.

Also the strikers were incredible.

On Rooney, he's been crap for England for what seems like forever.

NJ10 · 05-09-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAF

They were a better team aswell (96). Balance like you've never had since.

Also the strikers were incredible.

On Rooney, he's been crap for England for what seems like forever.

victim of the system imo, form is temporary, class is permanent.

remember, Shearer went 13 games without a goal for England before Euro 96. i remember at the time, biased as it seems, being furious that Fowler was being overlooked for him. he proved everyone wrong, just like Rooney will im sure.

**LAF** · 05-09-2007, 06:04 PM

I don't doubt Rooney's class but the reason he gets in the team is because of who he is not what he does. A problem you've had forever.

NJ10 · 05-09-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAF

I don't doubt Rooney's class but the reason he gets in the team is because of who he is not what he does. A problem you've had forever.

not completely true of Rooney. i think the reason he always plays is due to the lack of quality backup strikers. i dont care how well Defoe or Bent plays, if England need to win a crucial game, then Rooney has to play if he's fit. no question.

Werdna · 13-09-2007, 07:20 AM

The team from 1996 was better than this team. England hasn't had a team for quite a few years now, except for the occasional performances.

They always talk about the team spirit and how well they get along but I doubt that they get on al too well tbh. With the exception of Brasil teams will only go far in competitions if they have a real bonding and team spriit, a common cause to fight for. Germany at the last two WCs...individual players mediocore at best, but the all fought and played as a team and now even though the players still aren't world class individually even when they play second string teams they can play and win as a team.
Same goes for Italy at the world cup, they had a common cause to fight for (scandal in the league) which helped them to bond and stick together.

England 96 had a team spirit which was most probably helped by playing at home.

Take Holland on the other hand...always have dreamy players and are always pipped to do well but they never get along well at the big tournaments...