Who are the biggest bottlers in Europe ?

[Harry_Perkins]

Manager big part of the team pick a brick manager you're gonna have a pretty brick team

A poorly performing one, yes. Not necessarily lacking in talent. This England team though is probably the opposite of that. Very limited but we seem to have a manager who has something of a clue for once. Far better England teams than this haven't even got this far...

 

[Crawley]

I voted France as i only read the title.

Then I realised we wern't talking about wars and invasions.

 

[Parklaner81]

England for me. Holland have at least won a major tournament in fairly recent times.

 

[Viper]

Bayern Munich

 

[SUIYHA]

England for me. Holland have at least won a major tournament in fairly recent times.

Wouldn't call that recent. None of their squad who won Euro 88 are still playing.

 

[spitshine]

I voted for us. Stat I heard the other day which i wasnt aware of - we have never beaten a major footballing nation in the knockout stage
of either the WC or EC outside of England!!! This was confirmed by todays mail!

 

[Jurgen the German]

Harry Perkins, English teams have not dominated European football. The dominance has been shared amongst Spanish teams (Barca and Real), German teams (Bayern, Dortmund) and Italian teams (Inter, Juve, Milan). Look at the list of European cup winners by country, It currently reads:

Spain 13
Italy 12
England 12

I don't class England as the biggest bottlers as we are simply not a great team. Nobody outside of England ever thinks we are going to win a tournament. The managers can only do so much with a dearth of talent.

When it comes to Holland, I really believe that a lot of people tend to overrate their players, even to this day. It's like people are still stuck in a timewarp and think Holland still play free flowing football just because they played that way when they had Cruyff and Neeskens. They've been playing pretty dull football since the last World Cup. I don't understand what gives the Dutch players such a sense of entitlement. 1 tournament win in their history and only 1 appearance in a major final in the last 20 odd years.

 

[parklane1]

Has to be Holland, the team that got to two WC finals in the 70's was a great team. Since then they have had many top players but they always seem to blow it.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Harry Perkins, English teams have not dominated European football. The dominance has been shared amongst Spanish teams (Barca and Real), German teams (Bayern, Dortmund) and Italian teams (Inter, Juve, Milan). Look at the list of European cup winners by country, It currently reads:

Spain 13
Italy 12
England 12

Well, two points. Why only include the European Cup here? The Uefa Cup was as hard to win if not harder to win than the European Cup. Teams from 2nd to 4th competed in it and lower in later years. It was the competition most akin to the Champions League today. Most of the international players for the top nations would have probably been playing in the Uefa Cup than compared with the European Cup. But suffice to say, there was real quality across the board in both competitions. Secondly, I was really only talking about up until the mid 90s when English clubs usually had a 90%+ squad of English players. And the same for most of the other top nations. Obviously there is little point in comparing over the 15 years or so as European club football, not just the English league, has become more cosmopolitan generally.

Going back to the time of Heysel, the record reads:

European Cup - 8 English winners, 6 Spanish and 5 Italian and 4 German
Uefa Cup - 5 English winners, 0 Spanish and 1 Italian and 3 German
Cup Winners Cup - 5 English winners, 4 Spanish and 4 Italian and 3 German

Total trophies:

England 18
Italy 10
Spain 10
Germany 10

So quite simply, English clubs side dominated in Europe with mostly English playing squads. The talent was clearly there, why couldn't/haven't we put an XI together to do better on the international front? It can maybe be explained by lack of talent in the last decade or so but in the years before?

 

[Jurgen the German]

Well, two points. Why only include the European Cup here? The Uefa Cup was as hard to win if not harder to win than the European Cup. Teams from 2nd to 4th competed in it and lower in later years. It was the competition most akin to the Champions League today. Most of the international players for the top nations would have probably been playing in the Uefa Cup than compared with the European Cup. But suffice to say, there was real quality across the board in both competitions. Secondly, I was really only talking about up until the mid 90s when English clubs usually had a 90%+ squad of English players. And the same for most of the other top nations. Obviously there is little point in comparing over the 15 years or so as European club football, not just the English league, has become more cosmopolitan generally.

Going back to the time of Heysel, the record reads:

European Cup - 8 English winners, 6 Spanish and 5 Italian and 4 German
Uefa Cup - 5 English winners, 0 Spanish and 1 Italian and 3 German
Cup Winners Cup - 5 English winners, 4 Spanish and 4 Italian and 3 German

Total trophies:

England 18
Italy 10
Spain 10
Germany 10

So quite simply, English clubs side dominated in Europe with mostly English playing squads. The talent was clearly there, why couldn't/haven't we put an XI together to do better on the international front? It can maybe be explained by lack of talent in the last decade or so but in the years before?

Well the European Cup is the pinnacle of club football so that's why I focused on that. I can't really give any insight on why England didn't win anything from 1966-1990 but from what I understand, England were never as good techincally as the big guns (Germany, Italy, Argentina and Brazil). This is still the case today. We are one of the worst teams at this tournament when it comes to keeping the ball. We've been outplayed in every game so far. People expected teams with the likes of Heskey, Vassell, Walcott, Milner, Barry, Defoe and Crouch to win major tournaments! I didn't! Like I said before, the England manager always gets the blame no matter how badly the players perform or regardless of the fact that we are simply inferior to the real big football nations. We have only ever been good to watch during Euro 96 since I've been watching England.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

Well the European Cup is the pinnacle of club football so that's why I focused on that

Well, even on the European Cup stats, you have to figure in that English clubs were banned for 5 years. We'd probably still top the list without that. Again, how much that matters though when clubs across Europe are far more mixed than in the past, I'm not sure.

I can't really give any insight on why England didn't win anything from 1966-1990 but from what I understand, England were never as good techincally as the big guns (Germany, Italy, Argentina and Brazil).

Yet we could still beat most of these nations nearly two to one in terms of European trophies won? And we actually have a poorer record in the European Cup than the World Cup. I don't think you do that if you lack the technical ability. We just misused our most talented players. Not just Hoddle but both Bobby Robson and Graham Taylor also absurdly sidelined the likes of John Barnes and Gazza to incorporate far less talented players.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Well, even on the European Cup stats, you have to figure in that English clubs were banned for 5 years. We'd probably still top the list without that. Again, how much that matters though when clubs across Europe are far more mixed than in the past, I'm not sure.


Yet we could still beat most of these nations nearly two to one in terms of European trophies won? And we actually have a poorer record in the European Cup than the World Cup. I don't think you do that if you lack the technical ability. We just misused our most talented players. Not just Hoddle but both Bobby Robson and Graham Taylor also absurdly sidelined the likes of John Barnes and Gazza to incorporate far less talented players.

You can't just assume that we would have won the European cup a few times.

I agree with the misuse of our better technical players. Hoddle was criminally overlooked far too often. Gazza never quite fulfilled his potential so I guess you could argue that we would have won Euro 96 if he continued his incredible form in the early part of his career.

But when it comes to the last 15 years or so, we really have been well behind the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Brazil and Argentina. The premier league gets recognised as one of the best leagues in the world mainly because the influx of foreign players have improved the quality of the league. I'm sure if you were to pick a current best prem 11, most of the 11 would be foreigners.

 

[DubaiSpur]

The bigger they are, the more they've bottled it.

edit; just seen the 'national teams' stipulation. Ah, well.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

You can't just assume that we would have won the European cup a few times

I'm not assuming. I'm just pointing out that there was 5 years where English clubs weren't in it and we're still only 1 win behind Spain and level with Italy. That is pretty good going, I think. But again, how much it counts for is up for debate. Chelsea's latest victory an 'English' one? Not really.

But when it comes to the last 15 years or so, we really have been well behind the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Brazil and Argentina. The premier league gets recognised as one of the best leagues in the world mainly because the influx of foreign players have improved the quality of the league. I'm sure if you were to pick a current best prem 11, most of the 11 would be foreigners.

I dunno. I think there was a period between 1996-2004 where we had some good teams that matched anyone and always had a chance in the competitions they played in. One semi and two quarter finals was a poor return IMO. All those nations over that period had some very weak teams, at different points. We helped dump Argentina out in 2002, for example. Italy finished 2nd to us in qualifying for World Cup 98. Spain and Holland were knocked out of Euro 96. Germany finished 2nd to us in qualifying for 2002 and got battered 5-1 at home. If we'd won our groups in 2002 and 2004, we really had a very good path to the final. I mean, apart from Turkey (twice!), England was the hardest game Brazil got in 2002. Germany got destroyed in the final! Since then, yes, very limited teams. Hodgson is overachieving if we reach the semi finals. Arguably he's already done it by winning the group.

 

[Jurgen the German]

I'm not assuming. I'm just pointing out that there was 5 years where English clubs weren't in it and we're still only 1 win behind Spain and level with Italy. That is pretty good going, I think. But again, how much it counts for is up for debate. Chelsea's latest victory an 'English' one? Not really.



I dunno. I think there was a period between 1996-2004 where we had some good teams that matched anyone and always had a chance in the competitions they played in. One semi and two quarter finals was a poor return IMO. All those nations over that period had some very weak teams, at different points. We helped dump Argentina out in 2002, for example. Italy finished 2nd to us in qualifying for World Cup 98. Spain and Holland were knocked out of Euro 96. Germany finished 2nd to us in qualifying for 2002 and got battered 5-1 at home. If we'd won our groups in 2002 and 2004, we really had a very good path to the final. I mean, apart from Turkey (twice!), England was the hardest game Brazil got in 2002. Germany got destroyed in the final! Since then, yes, very limited teams. Hodgson is overachieving if we reach the semi finals. Arguably he's already done it by winning the group.

I would argue that even with the likes of Beckham (who I think is very overrated but that's another debate), Gerrard, Terry, Judas in his prime, that reaching the semi finals should have been considered a success. Germany and Italy know how to win tournaments, even with poor sides by their standards. France and Brazil have definitely been better than us for the last 15 years so it's no surprise that they dominated tournaments. Even Spain when they were known as bottlers had better players than we did.

 

[Mumorn]

Before 08 it was definitely Spain in my eyes. So much talent, yet never really got anywhere.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

France and Brazil have definitely been better than us for the last 15 years so it's no surprise that they dominated tournaments

France have dominated tournaments for the last 15 years? They haven't even dominated the group stages for the last 10 years! One final, three group stage humiliations, a quarter final defeat to Greece and that limp performance tonight having barely made it through the group. Truly terrible.

 

[Jurgen the German]

France have dominated tournaments for the last 15 years? They haven't even dominated the group stages for the last 10 years! One final, three group stage humiliations, a quarter final defeat to Greece and that limp performance tonight having barely made it through the group. Truly terrible.

I meant to say they dominated within a certain period, which they did! France won the world cup in 98 and Euro 2000. Brazil got to the final in 98 and won the 2002 world cup. France also got to a final in 06.

 

[Spur of the moment]

'For the inaugural tournament of the European Cup in 1955 the English League winners, Chelsea, were denied entry by the Football League's secretary Alan Hardaker, who believed it was in the best interests of English football and football in general for them not to enter.' (from Wikipedia)

:ross::ross::ross:

 

[Spurs7891]

Interesting to note almost all nations have been voted atleast once except for Sweden. I think Sweden too have produced many great players over the years but have never performed as a team in major tournaments. IIRC, they have been playing in major tournaments almost regularly since the 1930s.