LogFAQs > #969933240

RyoCaliente posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#England

This group of players huh, could've beat '10 Germany?

Um, yes? 2010 Germany were young and unproven, and that squad has Terry, Cole, Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney - proven world-class players in the latter stages of CL. Barry and Carrick were also both terrific players and Lennon was in hiscbest ever form around that time.

The big loss is Ferdinand, who typically performed well with Terry but missed that tournament.

It's some weird-ass revisionist history to say England's players in 2010 were anything less than excellent. Certainly a step below Spain's side at the time, but I wouldn't say anyone else's. Again, English teams got to CL finals almost every year around that time - often knocking out other English teams on the way - and the core of England's starting XI were key in those teams (Terry, Cole, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney. Barry was also excellent and would go on to win the title with City two years later, playing almost every league game).

There are weaknesses and Capello did his best to expose those weaknesses, but to say it's anything other than a very high-quality group of players is silly.

Also worth pointing out that England should have never played Germany in that tournament, because they failed to win a group that was just as easy as the one they had this time. Because of terrible management - and that's the thing about this discussion. You can make the argument for Germany, but there is absolutely no debate that England's team there was better than Algeria, USA, Slovenia and Ghana (who would have been the ro16 opponents). The criticism then must fall on Capello, and every piece of information about the awful preparation and execution that has come out since backs that up. He got it very badly, historically wrong.