So unlike the previous years it looks like most people are sceptical about England's hopes of reaching far in the World Cup...I think that it's a very solid team though.

It does look like England could pass the group stage, but then again even Costa Rica could put up a fight against England in the past.

The squad is really balanced, attack is strong with Vardy and Kane having 25+ goals per season there is also Rashford and Sterling all good talents.
Midfield that can back them up is also pretty good maybe not as good as some other countries have but Wilshare,Hendersen,Alli,Chanberlain,Dier are solid.
The defense is maybe the weakest part of the team but it's not that bad at all, Walker, Stones are part of the best defense in the league...

How far can England go?

We'll have to wait and see. I'm not sure exactly why you think Colombia are better, though. What makes you say so?

Coz england always flops and I don't see current team any better until proven otherwise since they proved they would fail miserably several times in the past. No offense though.

Coz england always flops

Well, they sure did flop in 2014, sure. In 2010, however, they were screwed by the ref against Germany, and in 2006 they were screwed by the ref in the QF against a Portugal they were beating, and in 2002 they lost in the QF to Brazil, after giving them the best game of the tournament.

So, I don't really agree that they always flop.

I don't see current team any better until proven otherwise

Well, I mean, they've beaten Germany, Spain and France in games over the last couple of years, so does that count?

My comment might be harsh but take a look at their history starting from 1993-1994 (the time when I started watching football), they didn't even make it past beyond quarter finals and it became worse after WC 2006. England barely made it out of groups in Euros in this time period too (part from Euros 96 when they host the tournament, their results are horrible). Keep in mind that Euros didn't have RO16 until Euro 2016 which means England didn't even win a single play off game except in their own turf.

If a team is consistently failing to perform, we can't just blame ref or luck.

Well, I mean, they've beaten Germany, Spain and France in games over the last couple of years, so does that count?

They need to beat them in major tournament where it matters. I can only remember they beat Germany in Euro 2000 but both of them eventually failed to make it out of the group.

My comment might be harsh but take a look at their history starting from 1993-1994

Right. Where we were hard done by in 1998, 2006 and 2010, ans in 2002 were one of the best teams in the tournament.

England barely made it out of groups in Euros in this time period too

We made it out comfortably out of the of the group stage in each of our last 3 Euro tournaments, and aside from losing to Iceland in 2016, we keep going out in the playoff round to a finalist (Italy and Portugal), on penalties.

That's not flopping.

Also, you mentioned earlier that you expect Belgium to win the group, but why? They have an even worse record than England does! Why do you rate Belgium so highly, when their team keeps flopping? Why do you rate Colombia over England, when Colombia keep flopping too?

Why do you label England as flops, but not them?

They need to beat them in major tournament where it matters.

Same for Colombia and Belgium. ;)

If a team is consistently failing to perform, we can't just blame ref or luck.

If teams have to consistently get England players unfairly sent off, or England are denied perfectly legitimate goals, just to even take England's opponents to hold us to a penalty shoot-out, then we can indeed point to how much the refs have played a role in England's failures. In 1998, Simeone got Beckham sent off, and Argentina scraped by us on penalties after we also had a goal in extra time disallowed. In 2006, Ronaldo got Rooney sent off in a game we were winning, and Portugal scraped by us on penalties once again.

That's why they hurt so much. We have to wait another 4 years to even try again, and (most) people who don't remember how these games actually played out just create the narrative that England are flops.

That sucks. :/

I don't want to argue anymore but it's awkward that England's only major trophy was won by a controversial goal while their fans claim they've been treated unfair.

Ok, sorry if my comment hurts you but I didn't mean it. It's the just way I see how England in WCs and Euros. I just can't see them as a serious contender.

PS: I won't reply to this topic anymore. Thanks for understanding.

but it's awkward that England's only major trophy was won by a controversial goal while their fans claim they've been treated unfair

That's not awkward, nor is it even slightly necessary to point out. Besides, even if England benefited from a controversial decision in 1966 doesn't mean it's right that we've been screwed so many times since.

It's the just way I see how England in WCs and Euros. I just can't see them as a serious contender.

Right. Like Belgium, and Colombia, both of whom you assume will be better than England.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that many people feel the same way you do, and it's not like I'm suggesting anyone should take England as a serious contender to win, but there's a narrative which floats around saying that England are so poor and keep flopping.

I was just hoping you'd be open to changing your mind once you knew a little bit more about how England have actually performed, and some of the reasons which heavily affected their results.

@Lodatz, if Wilshere could connect two injury free seasons he could seriously become like one of the best midfielders in PL, well Arsenal had Ozil, Alexis and Ramsey but Wilshere was also a big part of the team, especially in first half where he was very good.

His passing, small touches and getting away from a man is something that would drive England in right system IMO. Plus he's decent defensively aswell, and England doesn't have really stand-out DM, closest to it are Henderson and Dier when he is played there.

But if Wilshere doesn't start, who else would? I don't agree he should be there of Alli/Lingard either, but they could play in the same system.

If Alli plays in a deeper role where he is supposed to create, you lose his goalscoring in which he is best at.

I mean, there might be someone who can play in that role but I just can't think of him. Loftus-Cheek? Yeah he's good player, but trust him on tournament like this in crucial position? Idk I haven't watched him enough so I can't judge.

In 2010, Lampards goal was disallowed but only when samething happened to another team 2 years later ( I can’t remember call which match it was) in a tournament then UEFA and FIFA decided that it is time to use goal line technology. This bias against England has been going on for quiet sometime until these two stooges, Blatter and Platini, left Football for good!!

@Croatian:

His passing, small touches and getting away from a man is something that would drive England in right system IMO.

That's a fair point, and I can see that working.

Plus he's decent defensively aswell, and England doesn't have really stand-out DM, closest to it are Henderson and Dier when he is played there.

I think Dier and Henderson are both pretty stand-out DMs, although I naturally favor Dier. Doesn't mean that Wilshire isn't decent defensively, just that because I see the other two as better DM options, it doesn't make me want to push either of them aside just to make room for Wilshire.

If Alli plays in a deeper role where he is supposed to create, you lose his goalscoring in which he is best at.

If we do play 3 at the back, with Dier/Henderson sitting in front of them, Alli needn't drop too deep after all. I agree his goalscoring is one of his best features, but so too his passing and vision with the ball. Once again, I'm not saying Wilshire doesn't have good qualities there too, just that again I don't rate him highly enough to shuffle around the whole team for him.

Anyhow. I see your point about how he could be used effectively, and I agree. Thanks for explaining.

The way i see it, fullbacks are solid. Walker, Rose, Trippier and TAA are all good players and have proven they can perform at a high level. Theres also Young and Delph who i think are good inclusions as they are extemely versatile and can play in a number of positions. Up front there are plenty of goals in Kane, Vardy and Rashford. On the wings Lingard has performed well for Utd when called on and Sterling has been in sensational form for City.

My concern however for this England side is down the spine. The centre of the team is very underwhelming. The centre backs are fairly average and will be fine against the lesser sides, but once England hit a good attacking team they could be in trouble. Jones and Cahill have not played many games this year and I'm surprised they were included. Stones for me makes too many mistakes and McGuire is good but a lack of big game experience could cause an issue. The centre of midfield is ok. Dier and Henderson go very underrated for their club teams and do their job of protecting the back 4 and keeping the ball moving very well, however for their clubs they have fantastically creative players around them. Theres no creativity in centre midfield whatsoever. Dele is most likely going to be used in that creative role and despite a poor season by his standards his stats remain pretty impressive. The issue with him though is consistency and he does drift in and out of games.

It's all good having fantastic attacking players but if the midfield cant provide for them they may struggle to impact the game. I know there aren't tonnes of options in that area but there were a few options in Lallana, Wilshire, Shelvey and Winks wou couldve unlocked some doors

I think they'll do ok, I just don't think the squad is strong enough to go all the way.

My only problem with this squad is I don't see who can take build up play and turn into chances for some very prolific strikers. Kane, Rashford, and Vardy are all excellent, and the defense actually looks kind of ok, but both Ali/Lingard aren't really creative CAMs, they're more runners and getting into the box-type players. God forbid Henderson is the creative outlet.

What I don't see is a pivot in the midfield, someone who can receive the ball in an advanced position and smack it out to an overlapping fullbacks or through to a striker. At Spurs/United/Arsenal/Chelsea/City that position is held by a foreign player. For better or worse that means that England literally does not have a top level player for this position, and didn't even call one up anyway.

@Lodatz, yeah I'd agree with you too. Since 3ATB is most likely gonna be England's lineup, I guess they can do well without Wilshere.

@Sun, you summed it up well, I think that CM position is biggest problem they have, hopefully Winks, Cook or maybe even Davies can push it and do that role for England in future.

Suprised to see Hart and Smalling aren't part of the team going to Russia. :U The former propably don't deserve it but the second is a suprise. Especially considering they brought the like John Stone and Harry Maguire. Also why did they have to bring Welbeck. :(

the only reason stones is part of the best defense in the league is because he's sitting on the bench as back up while laporte and otamendi take care of things. weak squad overall, would be great to see an english player in the starting 11 who isn't in the premier league. would give the team some diversity, more experience when dealing with football from other continents. i feel like peru would body england.

jack wilshere not in the squad, since when lallana is more creative than jack? there is no creativity since alli and kane are fed by eriksen lol.

gust of wind: whoosh
jack wilshere: .....injured

@Gonzi He actually managed to stay pretty much injury free this season however and have been one of the best thing for Arsenal in this lackluster season. :(

yea he has stayed injury free. but i think what southgate saw was that he wasn't a gamechanger. not for arsenal or bournemouth.