Re: Your England XI
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:48 am
Just to balance the rose tintedness of one of our more "senior" posters. I don't recall this world class team that's being referred to in 1996. It was FIFA ranked 25 which is a lot lower than our current ranking and I recall plenty of times where I bemoaned for example, McManaman being largely ineffective. They were a decent team who put in a decent tournament performance. Exceeding my expectations. It also had some "highlights" which sway the notion somewhat. Beating the Scots in a tournament, is always going to engender delight - even though you'd have expected us to win. Thrashing Holland adds a fair amount too.
I see we've also moved to the "statistical analysis" to prove a point. But - and it's quite a big but, you've used career statistics rather than those stats that were actually in place at the time (1996). So here's a few stats.
Kane has a higher goals per game ratio to Shearer going into this tournament - it's not particularly close. More goals, fewer games. (0.63 v 0.48 - career stat). Shearer is probably more "your type" of forward, they don't play the same game, Shearer was effective, Kane much moreso than the Shearer who went into the 1996 tournament...When we went into 1996 competition, Shearer's record was 5 in 23 (0.22), so much lower than Kane's 0.63 is now. Shearers record improved after the 1996 tournament, immeasureably.
If we then look at the Platt thing a little more closely - his GPG is very near Shearers overall, but was much higher going into the tournament (0.44), but the next best on the list - Sheringham - is lower than both Rashford and Sterling and when he went into the tournament his gpg was 0.13, neither Sterling nor Rashford get a mention. If you put the three together, (Shearer, Platt, Sheringham v Kane, Rashford, Sterling) then the 2021 vintage is ahead on GPG (0.38 v 0.34).
Widening it out a little - Mount is higher on GPG than Anderton's career stats by 0.02 (not by much), but conversly, Anderton had 5 in 11 going into 1996 so was way ahead, and Gascoigne is slightly ahead of Sancho by 0.2.
Foden is higher than most - only behind Kane, Platt and Anderton as they stood in 1996 - but fairly small sample. If we went Rashford, Kane, Foden, they'd have a much better ratio than Anderton, Platt, Shearer. And that's part of the problem with this comparison.
I'd also suggest that this team is still more WIP and younger than the 1996 team. It's a couple of years on average lower in age, there isn't much difference in average appearances.
I don't recall having significantly high hopes of the 96 team and actually some of the points you make occurred after the tournament, so McManaman playing for Real Madrid, occured 3 years later. Would they have bought him in 1996? I dunno.
There's also the Ince "thing". Ince would be a red card walking in today's game, so you're not going to see another Ince, Keane, Viera etc. because they wouldn't get away with it now.
As a final point, the Euro 1996 song. Nowhere near as good as New Order's 1990 song. To quote your good self - not even a point for debate. Period. For Ever. It's coming home is an absolute bag of fcuking spanners. There. I've said it and I feel much better.
I see we've also moved to the "statistical analysis" to prove a point. But - and it's quite a big but, you've used career statistics rather than those stats that were actually in place at the time (1996). So here's a few stats.
Kane has a higher goals per game ratio to Shearer going into this tournament - it's not particularly close. More goals, fewer games. (0.63 v 0.48 - career stat). Shearer is probably more "your type" of forward, they don't play the same game, Shearer was effective, Kane much moreso than the Shearer who went into the 1996 tournament...When we went into 1996 competition, Shearer's record was 5 in 23 (0.22), so much lower than Kane's 0.63 is now. Shearers record improved after the 1996 tournament, immeasureably.
If we then look at the Platt thing a little more closely - his GPG is very near Shearers overall, but was much higher going into the tournament (0.44), but the next best on the list - Sheringham - is lower than both Rashford and Sterling and when he went into the tournament his gpg was 0.13, neither Sterling nor Rashford get a mention. If you put the three together, (Shearer, Platt, Sheringham v Kane, Rashford, Sterling) then the 2021 vintage is ahead on GPG (0.38 v 0.34).
Widening it out a little - Mount is higher on GPG than Anderton's career stats by 0.02 (not by much), but conversly, Anderton had 5 in 11 going into 1996 so was way ahead, and Gascoigne is slightly ahead of Sancho by 0.2.
Foden is higher than most - only behind Kane, Platt and Anderton as they stood in 1996 - but fairly small sample. If we went Rashford, Kane, Foden, they'd have a much better ratio than Anderton, Platt, Shearer. And that's part of the problem with this comparison.
I'd also suggest that this team is still more WIP and younger than the 1996 team. It's a couple of years on average lower in age, there isn't much difference in average appearances.
I don't recall having significantly high hopes of the 96 team and actually some of the points you make occurred after the tournament, so McManaman playing for Real Madrid, occured 3 years later. Would they have bought him in 1996? I dunno.
There's also the Ince "thing". Ince would be a red card walking in today's game, so you're not going to see another Ince, Keane, Viera etc. because they wouldn't get away with it now.
As a final point, the Euro 1996 song. Nowhere near as good as New Order's 1990 song. To quote your good self - not even a point for debate. Period. For Ever. It's coming home is an absolute bag of fcuking spanners. There. I've said it and I feel much better.