World Cup Schedule

[Golden Avalanche]

England have Pickford, Dier, Stones, Maguire, Trippier, Jones, Alexander-Arnold, Lingard, Sterling, Alli, Loftus-Cheek, Kane, and Rashford, will all still be in their 20s for Euro 2020, and most will still be in their 20s for Qatar 2022.  England also won the U-17 World Cup in 2017, and the U-20 World Cup in 2017 so the big name prospects have pulled their weight against the prospects from other traditional powerhouses.

You've mentioned this accomplishment twice now as if it guarantees future success.

Serbia won the Youth World Cup in 2015. How did they fare in Euro 2016? How did they fare in Russia 2018?

How many players from France's 2013 win were in the squad yesterday? How many players from the Brasil squad who lost in 2015 were in Russia?

Youth level to senior level is a total crapshoot.

[Its DJOver]

You've mentioned this accomplishment twice now as if it guarantees future success.

Serbia won the Youth World Cup in 2015. How did they fare in Euro 2016? How did they fare in Russia 2018?

How many players from France's 2013 win were in the squad yesterday? How many players from the Brasil squad who lost in 2015 were in Russia?

Youth level to senior level is a total crapshoot.

Bolded is just not true.

Youth to 1st team is not an exact science, but it does mean that the youth players from England were better than the youth players from Spain, Brazil, US, Japan, Chile, Iraq, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Guinea, Costa Rica, Italy, and Venezuela.  Some outliers in there, but quite a few heavy hitters that aren't as good as England's youth teams.  If the US had done as well as England in those tournaments I would be a lot more optimistic about our future.

Also I fail to see where I guaranteed success.  I said the future was bright due to the success at this years World Cup, the youth of this years team, and the product coming through the academy.  I'm not sure what else you can look at when attempting to gauge future success.

[Pakuni]

England was maybe the seventh or eighth best team or so at this tournament. They were fortunate to play on the weaker side of the bracket and fortunate some of the stronger sides crashed in the groups (specifically Germany).

I don't know...I've been watching England a long time. Every few years, we hear about all these great EPL players that will take the world by storm. Then Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Owen, Rio, Hart, etc go to play internationally and they are exposed for the average players they are. Generation after generation, we hear how this will be the one to bring it home, then when they play real competition, they fold. This year, they played three legit games. Belgium twice and Croatia. They lost all three. They nearly lost to Colombia with James on the bench.

Maybe this team will be different, but there's a reason Football hasn't come home since 1966, and it's because England is pretty freaking average. The only reason they get the hype they do is because the EPL is the best marketed league in the world and requirements for teams carrying domestic players overinflates their value. Sure, they produce the occasional legitimate world class player like Beckham, but they are a long way from nations like France, Germany, Brazil, Spain, and the Netherlands that routinely produce world class players.

Seventh or eighth seems a bit harsh. Though I'd have to see the 6-7 teams you thought were better before I judge. And if you plan on listing Spain or Germany, please don't waste your time.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What English teams have done in the past is wholly irrelevant. The Cubs, Eagles, Astros, Capitals and Red Sox, all flopped every year when it mattered ... until they didn't.
In fact, that was a huge theme of this World Cup for Southgate ... that the current squad is not bound by past squads' disappointments.
Again, nobody here is guaranteeing anything. But if you look at the youth and talent on England's roster and say there is literally no reason to believe they're going to be very good for the next cycle, you're not being fair.

[brewcity77]

Seventh or eighth seems a bit harsh. Though I'd have to see the 6-7 teams you thought were better before I judge. And if you plan on listing Spain or Germany, please don't waste your time.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What English teams have done in the past is wholly irrelevant. The Cubs, Eagles, Astros, Capitals and Red Sox, all flopped every year when it mattered ... until they didn't.
In fact, that was a huge theme of this World Cup for Southgate ... that the current squad is not bound by past squads' disappointments.
Again, nobody here is guaranteeing anything. But if you look at the youth and talent on England's roster and say there is literally no reason to believe they're going to be very good for the next cycle, you're not being fair.

France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?

As far as Russia, I'm about as unconvinced by their group stage as England (two unimpressive wins, one loss against a clearly superior opponent) but they had a better win in elimination play than anyone England played (Spain) and lost to the same team, albeit giving them a slightly tougher test (penalties as opposed to extra time).

When it comes to England, what I think is relevant is the constant overrating of their squad. EPL money being spent on players that do not make the grade internationally. When you look at the path this team took, why would that inspire more future confidence than other England squads that failed to meet overblown expectations?

Honestly, the first loss to Belgium convinced me they were overrated. There was so much fear of Brazil talk, and England played that game like they wanted to be on the softer side of the bracket. Maybe I'm putting too much into a lackadaisical effort, but if you believe you're good enough to win, you play that way every time out. They didn't, and left me unconvinced. Maybe I'm reading too much into decades of England and one result, but I think this is just a combination of marketing and too many people listening to Baddiel and Skinner on Spotify.

[Its DJOver]

France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?

I think that's list is solid, but looking forward to 2022 I think the majority of those teams will be taking a step back between now and 2022, while England is in a situation to take a step forward.

Croatia: Rakitic 30, Modric 32, Perisic 29, Mandzukic 32. Kovacic could be world class by 2022, but the others will be gone or in serious decline.

Belgium: As I pointed out earlier they'll have a solid core but replacing Vertonghen 31, Kompany 32, and Alderweireld 29 will be no small task.  If they can't develop a couple of center back, it could be a step back.

Brazil: Similar situation to Belgium.  They'll always be great going forward but they'll lose Miranda 33, Marcelo 30, Filipe Luis 32, and Thiago Silva 33. Marquinhos will be solid, but they'll be a lot of inexperienced players in the back line.

Uruguay: Godin 32, Suarez 31, Cavani 31. Big step back for them.  Might not even make it with the rigors that is CONMEBOL.

Spain: Ramos 32, Pique 31, Iniesta 34, David Silva 32.  They've got some good prospects in their low 20s, so they'll still be good but those 4 are truly world class that will be difficult to replace.

Until all the Russians go pass a drug test, I will assume that this was the exception rather than the norm.

France will still be great, and I expect Germany to compete as well, but there were a lot of last time rounds this World Cup.

I wouldn't disagree that England was not as good as the 4th place finish this year suggests, but they'll be keeping so many players that were important to this years run that it's hard to see how the team is worse in four years.  Even if they don't finish as well, the overall talent on the squad should be raised in 2022.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Uruguay? Please. It's Cavani, Suarez and nobody else. You saw how bad they were when Cavani was injured. Same four years ago when Suarez was suspended.

I also think Brazil has been coasting off of reputation over the past decade instead of results. Never had the feeling Brazil was going to win this time around and if you look at their latest Copa results they were nowhere near winning.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Top ten markets for the entire 2018 World Cup on FOX/FS1:
Ratings
Washington - 3.8
San Francisco - 3.3
Miami - 3.2
Austin - 3.2
San Diego - 3.1
New York - 3.1
Providence - 2.9
Los Angeles - 2.9
West Palm - 2.8
Tulsa - 2.7

[Mr. Nielsen]

Top growth markets for the 2018 World Cup Final:

Dallas: +31%
Milwaukee: +22%
Providence: +20%
Minneapolis: +15%
Tampa: +13%
St. Louis: +13%
Austin: +12%
Detroit: +5%
Denver: +4%
Chicago: +3%

[Pakuni]

France, Croatia, Belgium, Brazil, Uruguay, and Spain are the easy ones. Germany and Russia are worth consideration. You say to ignore Germany and Spain, but do either fail to qualify from England's two-team group? Do you not think either make the quarters?

Spain was trash. They had arguably the easiest path to the quarters out of the final 16 and embarrassed themselves vs Russia. Not just the fact they lost, but the way they played bad, uninspired soccer.
Germany also was trash. If not for a miracle last-second goal vs Sweden, they'd have gone winless in the tourney, having scored just one goal.
Don't get me wrong ... both squads had more overall talent than England, but neither was the sum of its parts. And they were not close to being better teams than England in this tournament.

When you look at the path this team took, why would that inspire more future confidence than other England squads that failed to meet overblown expectations?

I think you're being a bit unfair here. First, they can't control who they play in the group stage. They did what they were supposed to do. They dominated both lesser opponents (don't let the final score vs Tunisia fool you) and you need to throw out the Belgium game, because neither team wanted to win. Your criticism of England for its performance in that game while not holding Belgium to the same standard is odd. Belgium won, but they were no more interested in a win than England.

[brewcity77]

DJOver, I'm talking about 2018, not 2022. That statement specifically referenced why I thought England was maybe the 7th or 8th best team in Russia.

Chitown, I think your Uruguay assessment may be biased. If James is fit and plays in the Round of 16, my guess is England gets eliminated there and we aren't even having this discussion, if that helps any

Pakuni, honestly, I feel there was a lot of parity. A few really good teams that mostly ended up meeting in the quarters on the same side of the bracket. The only time England looked truly impressive against a quality opponent was Sweden. Spain, Japan, and Russia all had as or more impressive outings. The bracket really shook out well for England and they were able to slip by a depleted Colombia and an overachieving Sweden to get to a semifinal. They did what an England fan would hope for given the draw, but I think the final results are an overachievement based both on talent and team quality.

[Its DJOver]

That's fair, I'd  probably put them about the same, maybe a little higher.

I think my optimism for England in 2022 is similar to that of our optimism for MU next year. A lot of the teams around them are losing significant pieces, while they return most of their starting 11 and nearly all of their scoring, and will be one of the more experienced teams come next cycle.  It certainly has it's similarities and we seem to have fairly high expectations for MU next year, so I think it's fair to have similar expectations for England in 2022.

[muwarrior69]

I use to think watching soccer was like watching grass grow, but over time what I appreciate most about the game is that there is no dead time; the ball is pretty much always in play unlike the NFL. With all the commercial timeouts and time in between plays the game has to me become boring. The only other thing I do not like about soccer is that there is no sense of when the clock has run out.

[Golden Avalanche]

Bolded is just not true.

Youth to 1st team is not an exact science, but it does mean that the youth players from England were better than the youth players from Spain, Brazil, US, Japan, Chile, Iraq, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, Guinea, Costa Rica, Italy, and Venezuela.  Some outliers in there, but quite a few heavy hitters that aren't as good as England's youth teams.  If the US had done as well as England in those tournaments I would be a lot more optimistic about our future.

Also I fail to see where I guaranteed success.  I said the future was bright due to the success at this years World Cup, the youth of this years team, and the product coming through the academy.  I'm not sure what else you can look at when attempting to gauge future success.

What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?

You conveniently ignored my questions regarding three other countries that had recent success in the Youth Cup:

What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?

What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

[Golden Avalanche]

This talk of England having a bright future is eerily similar to all the talk surrounding The Netherlands having a bright future after their display in Brasil 2014.

[GGGG]

What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?

You conveniently ignored my questions regarding three other countries that had recent success in the Youth Cup:

What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?

What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

Brazil.

Unless you are going to call Serbia either Србија or Srbija of course....

[Its DJOver]

What is your definition of "crapshoot"? What is your definition of "not an exact science"?

Crapshoot would be a completely random draw.  If the U-whatevers were truly a crapshoot then you would see more random countries doing well.  Its no coincidence that for both the U-20 and U-17 WCs the semi finals included 3 soccer "superpowers".  Its not an exact science because you need players to continue to develop.  It's the same with any sport really, just because a prospect is doing well at AAA ball or the G league does not mean that it will translate to the next level.

What of Serbia's win in 2015 and the how those players made an impact at senior level?

As noted, you need players to continue to develop. Of the players on that team, only 2 or 3 are at good academies.  Genk has a great academy, Milinkovic-Savic transfer value reflects that.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/sergej-milinkovic-savic/profil/spieler/266302
Had they not conceded in the 90 min against Switzerland, they would have finished second in their group and moved on to the knockout stage. 

What of France's win in 2013 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

You do know that that 2013 team produced the game winning goal scorers for both the semi finals and the finals at this World Cup right?  Any youth team that produces the likes of Pogba, Umtiti, Zouma, Digne, Lemina, and Thauvin would be universally considered great.  I think just about any country in the world would take youth production like that.

What of Brasil's runner-up in 2015 and how 80% of those players weren't in Russia?

You do know how hard it is to make the national team for one of the best countries in the world right.  Just because players like Joao Pedro and Lucao can't displace Thiago Silva and Marcelo at this World Cup does not mean that they're busts.  Brazil had a lot of players in their 30s that won't be around for the next cycle.  I think you'll see a lot of those open spots going to players from that 2015 U-20 squad.

Once again, having good youth teams is not a guarantee of future 1st team success.  But having success at the youth level is certainly cause for optimism, which is what my original point about England was.  You need your prospects to be at good academies and be in a position where they can get consistent 1st team minutes.  You can be the best prospect in the world, but if you're sitting on the bench you're not going to get better.  Quite a few of England's U-20 players have already made their senior debuts.  If Lewis Cook, Dominic Solanke, Kyle Walker-Peters, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden can continue to work their way into regular minutes for their respective clubs, then there's no reason to believe that they can't continue to develop into future Three Lions players. 

[Pakuni]

This talk of England having a bright future is eerily similar to all the talk surrounding The Netherlands having a bright future after their display in Brasil 2014.

Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, Sterling, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.

[Its DJOver]

Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, SterlingTrippier, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.

FIFY

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

FIFY

Be nice to Sterling, he gets enough crap from the British media as is. After their win over Colombia, one of the papers headlines was Sterling still fails to score in England's win, or something like that.

[Its DJOver]

Be nice to Sterling, he gets enough crap from the British media as is. After their win over Colombia, one of the papers headlines was Sterling still fails to score in England's win, or something like that.

My intent was not to insult Raheem, but to point out that he was not at the level of the others.  I think Sterling had a decent WC, did a lot of work to create space for Kane, but Kane scored, Trippier scored, Lingard scored, Maguire scored, and Pickford was one of the best keepers in the tournament.

Some of the abuse that he receives from the English media is absolutely ridiculous. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44285455

[Golden Avalanche]

Crapshoot would be a completely random draw.  If the U-whatevers were truly a crapshoot then you would see more random countries doing well.  Its no coincidence that for both the U-20 and U-17 WCs the semi finals included 3 soccer "superpowers".  Its not an exact science because you need players to continue to develop.  It's the same with any sport really, just because a prospect is doing well at AAA ball or the G league does not mean that it will translate to the next level.

As noted, you need players to continue to develop. Of the players on that team, only 2 or 3 are at good academies.  Genk has a great academy, Milinkovic-Savic transfer value reflects that.
https://www.transfermarkt.com/sergej-milinkovic-savic/profil/spieler/266302
Had they not conceded in the 90 min against Switzerland, they would have finished second in their group and moved on to the knockout stage. 
You do know that that 2013 team produced the game winning goal scorers for both the semi finals and the finals at this World Cup right?  Any youth team that produces the likes of Pogba, Umtiti, Zouma, Digne, Lemina, and Thauvin would be universally considered great.  I think just about any country in the world would take youth production like that.
You do know how hard it is to make the national team for one of the best countries in the world right.  Just because players like Joao Pedro and Lucao can't displace Thiago Silva and Marcelo at this World Cup does not mean that they're busts.  Brazil had a lot of players in their 30s that won't be around for the next cycle.  I think you'll see a lot of those open spots going to players from that 2015 U-20 squad.

Once again, having good youth teams is not a guarantee of future 1st team success.  But having success at the youth level is certainly cause for optimism, which is what my original point about England was.  You need your prospects to be at good academies and be in a position where they can get consistent 1st team minutes.  You can be the best prospect in the world, but if you're sitting on the bench you're not going to get better.  Quite a few of England's U-20 players have already made their senior debuts.  If Lewis Cook, Dominic Solanke, Kyle Walker-Peters, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden can continue to work their way into regular minutes for their respective clubs, then there's no reason to believe that they can't continue to develop into future Three Lions players.

As you answer eloquently, youth players all coming good at the senior level to continue the upward trajectory of their career is a crapshoot. You blame academies for their failure. You blame established players for their failure. I imagine you would blame coaching mis-opportunity for their failure. Yet you never mention these obstacles for a team that you would desperately want to succeed because you are blinded by optimism not to accept that these obstacles are likely to claim England as a victim just like it has with virtually every other nation that has done well in the Youth Cup.

[Its DJOver]

As you answer eloquently, youth players all coming good at the senior level to continue the upward trajectory of their career is a crapshoot (False). You blame academies for their failure(False). You blame established players for their failure(False). I imagine you would blame coaching mis-opportunity for their failure(Putting words in my mouth). Yet you never mention these obstacles for a team that you would desperately want to succeed because you are blinded by optimism not to accept that these obstacles are likely to claim England as a victim just like it has with virtually every other nation that has done well in the Youth Cup(False).

Question for you.  What would you look at in an attempt to gauge how successful a team will be in the future?

My original point, which you seem not to get, is that there is reason for optimism for English fans.

I wouldn't peg them as the favorites for 2022, but the future is definitely bright for the Three Lions

I made that claim based on their success in Russia, the number of players from the current squad that will still be in their prime in 2022, and the success of the youth teams.  Notice how the success of the youth teams is only part of the reasoning. 

What else can you analyze to attempt to determine how well a team will be in 4 years?

[Golden Avalanche]

Not, it isn't.
The average age of the starting lineup for that Netherlands squad was two years older than this England team and, more importantly, most of its top players in that tournament (Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, de Jong) were 29 or older.
On the other hand, most of England's top players in this tournament (Kane, Pickford, Sterling, Lingard, Maguire, etc.) are 25 or younger.
The circumstances are not at all alike.
Again, nobody is guaranteeing anything for England here, but the efforts here to downplay the squad's upside - based apparently on past teams for England and now the Netherlands - miss the mark.

It sure is an apt comparison. Both had a young up-and-coming goalkeeper; both had solid core of defenders; both had midfielders entering the prime of their career; both had dynamic talents up front; both had tantalizing youth in the creative ranks that would be projected to step right in to the next iteration of the squad; both advanced far further in the tournament then any expected.

[Its DJOver]

Number of players 30+ on the Netherlands 2014 squad: 7
Number of players 30+ on England's 2018 squad: 3

Number of players 30+ in match day squad in 2014 semi final: 4
Number of players 30+ in match day squad in 2018 semi final: 1

Replacing Robben, Van Persie, Sneijder, and Huntelaar, is a much taller task than replacing Ashley Young.

[Golden Avalanche]

Question for you.  What would you look at in an attempt to gauge how successful a team will be in the future?

My original point, which you seem not to get, is that there is reason for optimism for English fans.

I wouldn't peg them as the favorites for 2022, but the future is definitely bright for the Three Lions

I made that claim based on their success in Russia, the number of players from the current squad that will still be in their prime in 2022, and the success of the youth teams.  Notice how the success of the youth teams is only part of the reasoning. 

What else can you analyze to attempt to determine how well a team will be in 4 years?

Firstly, I didn't engage you in a discussion over your optimism for England so bringing up your original point and putting it in bold is irrelevant. I asked that question of ChitownForRent and he answered.

I engaged you in a discussion over your continued drumbeat that because a nation won the Youth Cup then that nation will be very good in the near future. The results of that metric are mixed. A crapshoot, if you will.

Secondly, the overarching point being made by me is that predicting linear success for a country when it comes to international tournaments is a fool's errand. It simply doesn't work that way. Far too many variables in the discussion make it more like throwing darts at cork than informed analysis even if all you harp on is youth.

Germany won the World Cup in 2014. Half of their squad in 2018 were making World Cup debuts and Goetze, who scored the winner in 2014, wasn't in the squad.

France was in the final of Euro 2016 and eight of the 14 players who featured weren't on their World Cup winning squad. In two years, France dramatically reshaped their entire program and that was coming off an appearance in a major final.

So much is going to happen in the next three and 3/4 years for every country regarding their players that youth alone is not a tonic for the uncertainty of where the program will, or won't, succeed whether it be qualifying or the competition itself.