Ollie Watkins

[cdbearsfan]

Yes, I would have to disagree with the conclusion of W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman.

[brontebilly]

Also, Kane easily can play the 'false 9' that has been mentioned. If anything, he does it a lot.

When has he performed in an international tournament for England? Has a dose of the Rooney's if anything, maybe one very good tournament and the rest rubbish.

In four tournaments he's got six goals, four goals, two goals, three goals.

And given he'll probably have at least another four or five matches I imagine that he'll end with a (individual) tournament record that stands up against pretty much anyone in history.

Was he a good fit in the last Euros team for England? I thought he was rubbish to be honest, as was Bellingham, the odd goal hardly challenges that view. As a team, England were far better when Watkins was on. Bowen I think would be a good option there too, lots more movement across the front line rather than dropping constantly short into a congested area. No pressure on the ball coming out with Kane too.

Spain started winning tournaments when they dropped Raul, made them a better team.

[Drummond]

Yes, with your undressed salads and and high speed railways you are an example to the world.

We've got high-speed salads and undressed railways. That's the problem.

[German James]

There it is, there's the weird deluded England arrogance that dismisses everyone else as being no good.

I think we're saying the opposite!

[paul_e]

There it is, there's the weird deluded England arrogance that dismisses everyone else as being no good.

I think we're saying the opposite!

Yep. It's not arrogant really, we're ranked 4th in the world, we should be winning pretty much anyone we face in qualifying and in group stages at tournaments because the system is designed to create that. What England haven't done very well for a while is beat other teams in the top 10 in games that matter.

[Dave]

There it is, there's the weird deluded England arrogance that dismisses everyone else as being no good.

I think we're saying the opposite!

Yep. It's not arrogant really, we're ranked 4th in the world, we should be winning pretty much anyone we face in qualifying and in group stages at tournaments because the system is designed to create that. What England haven't done very well for a while is beat other teams in the top 10 in games that matter.

The post he replied to was that "we've lost to the first good team we've played in every tournament", which is pretty dismissive of the likes of Croatia, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Colombia, Switzerland - particularly given those are the sorts of country England have spent most of the previous fifty years not beating in the knockout stages of tournaments.

If he'd said the first better team, that would have been a bit more valid.

[paul_e]

Maybe, still not fair to say arrogant though, which was the bit I didn't like, it's really not arrogant to expect to beat teams 10-20 places below you in the rankings. In much the same way I wouldn't chastise CD for expecting Scotland to beat Qatar or North Macedonia.

[Ian.]

Don’t we do this all the time when Villa are playing Brentford, Forest, Palace, Bournemouth etc?

[paul_e]

Don’t we do this all the time when Villa are playing Brentford, Forest, Palace, Bournemouth etc?

Yep, exactly.

[Duncan Shaw]

Well, not Palace!!

[cdbearsfan]

Maybe, still not fair to say arrogant though, which was the bit I didn't like, it's really not arrogant to expect to beat teams 10-20 places below you in the rankings. In much the same way I wouldn't chastise CD for expecting Scotland to beat Qatar or North Macedonia.

I wouldn't expect to beat Qatar or North Macedonia, though.

Can't be arsed to check, but I'd be surprised if Germany were 10-20 places below England in the rankings when England beat them and everyone on here was still moaning like fuck because Southgate hadn't consulted them personally before selecting his team.

Also, the rankings are nonsense anyway.

[Dave]

Can't be arsed to check, but I'd be surprised if Germany were 10-20 places below England in the rankings when England beat them and everyone on here was still moaning like fuck because Southgate hadn't consulted them personally before selecting his team.

4th vs 12th.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'd expect Scotland to beat Qatar, not so much NM though as they are decent especially at home. The rankings are a bit cack though, there's loads of sides ranked higher than the Faroes that I reckon would struggle to even get a draw against them as an example.

[cdbearsfan]

Any system that includes friendlies is bollocks.

[chrisw1]

There it is, there's the weird deluded England arrogance that dismisses everyone else as being no good.

I think we're saying the opposite!

Yep. It's not arrogant really, we're ranked 4th in the world, we should be winning pretty much anyone we face in qualifying and in group stages at tournaments because the system is designed to create that. What England haven't done very well for a while is beat other teams in the top 10 in games that matter.

The post he replied to was that "we've lost to the first good team we've played in every tournament", which is pretty dismissive of the likes of Croatia, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Colombia, Switzerland - particularly given those are the sorts of country England have spent most of the previous fifty years not beating in the knockout stages of tournaments.

If he'd said the first better team, that would have been a bit more valid.

The German team at that time were in awful form during a period of transition.  I don't think it's arrogant to say you should mostly expect England to beat the other teams listed, given the depth of our wider pool of players, the strength of our national league and huge levels of funding.   

As mentioned above, it's no different to Villa fans thinking we should mostly beat Burnley or Ipswich.

It's funny how the English are always arrogant when other teams are bullish or confident, England always bottle it when other teams lose bravely etc.  It's bitter and hypocritical.  It's the Celtic way.