Talk:England national football team

	Pending tasks for England national football team:	edit -history - watch - purge
	Mention the press' treatment of Bobby Robson ("For the love of God, go" etc.) Add real strips instead of line drawing representations. Add some decent pictures Add Supporters section

Archives
2004 – March 2006 March 2006 – March 2007 March 2007 – 2008

From 'to do' list, England managers

• Can Peter J. Taylor please be added as an England manager after all, he was manager for 1 game v Italy, Turin, 15.11.2000, England lost 1-0 Johnboyb (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• ditto Howard Wilkinson who was caretaker manager twice; v France, Wembley, 10.2.1999 England lost 2-0; v Finland, Helsinki, 11.10.2000 drew 0-0 Johnboyb (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Pretty Green (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Glen Hoddle - Why isn't anything about him mentioned in the History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekillers342 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTABLE PLAYERS

I think using the English Football Hall of Fame as a means of deciding who should count as the England national team's 'Notable Players' is a mistake.

Some players are included for their achievements with their clubs, and deservedly so. But speaking purely in terms of their career for England (which is what this article is about) there is no way Ian Wright and John Barnes are more notable than say, David Platt or Michael Owen. Is there another list (possibly a fans' poll of greatest England players) that would be more suitable?

Ages

Why are the players' ages shown in the most recent squad section? Surely the DOB is enough? (I actually think that adding a player's DOB is a bit unnecessary). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So readers can see what age the players are, it's used on all national teams (at least those well updated), it's just good information for the reader. "Oh they have a 40 year old in the team" or "Oh a 18 year old already has 15 caps" or stuff like that chandler · 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Badge

why does the badge not have a star? the kit has a star over it, albiet a white star on white kit, it is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.202.2 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ever since England won the World Cup the team has been entitled to wear a star over the badge on the shirt and incorporate it into the Association logo. It wasn't until recently that the badge has been worn on the shirt as the FA resisted moves to put one on. They have stated that, whilst they have now relented on that, a star will never appear on the FA logo. (Quentin X (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

the fa are gutless idiots! Dribblingscribe (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Carrick debut

Michael Carrick actually made his England debut in 2001, not 2005? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.13.238 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're correct, we've got his first start rather than first appearance for some reason. Thanks. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

'One of the more successful football teams'

Sorry, but this really makes no sense. More successful compared to what? Yes, England won the world cup, but truth be told they have a rather abyssmal record in the WC competition otherwise, hardly that of 'one of the more successful teams' and if you take into account their relatively poor performance in the other major competitions they compete in, such as the Euro, it becomes clear that this clause simply does not belong. Their total 'success' in any major tournament apart from that one WC win is their third place finish in the 1968 Euro.

Of the other winners of the WC they clearly have the least successful record. That alone would put them as 7th best in the history of the tournament. (Forget about Brasil, Argentina, Germany, Italy... compare England's record to say, France, who also have only one WC win, but also have 2 second place finishes and 2 third place finishes. And they've won the Euro twice.) But arguably a team like the Netherlands, although never having won the WC, has been at least equally successful as England, having made it to the WC final twice, and winning the Euro, but we see no claims on their page of successful whatever. How about the USSR? They won the Euro once and made it to the final another 3 times. They won the Olympic Gold twice and the Bronze three times. The list goes on of teams that have been very 'successful'. If England is one of the most successful national teams in the world, then they have a lot of company, and that makes the claim rather pointless.

I realize most of the editors here are going to be three lions fans and therefore biased, but that line should really be changed. It is only based on the one WC win, so it should be more specific. Something like " England is in a very select group, having been one of only 7 national teams to have won the World Cup." Trefalcon (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy math, there are currently over 200 national football teams, they're on of the only 7 teams to have won a World Cup... that's one of the most successful. chandler • 18:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you addressed my point. The point is the WC win is their only major success, and it was 43 years ago, so the line should reflect that. Saying England is 'one of the more successful football teams' implies something slightly more than I think is true. If we're going to say that something should be added after like 'however, the WC win in 1966 was their only major success' which refutes the claim in the first place. What's wrong with "England is in a very select group, being one of only 7 national teams to have won the World Cup." ? Trefalcon (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I addressed the point. If you've won the world cup, you're one of the most successful football teams. Just as Uruguay is, even though their last world cup win was in 1950. chandler • 09:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely POV and to be honest its a bit of a joke. England and Spain are both a joke when it comes to their WC records. I'd remove it.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No the POV thing to do would be to say they're not one of the most successful teams despite winning a World Cup just because they've not gotten past quarter finals since 1990. chandler • 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is completely POV, unverifiable and fits the definition of weasel words. "Success" is a subjective term and a matter of opinion, not fact. I have removed it. [[Fußballspielen (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I think Fußballspielen's edit looks good. If anybody wants to embellish the line about the WC win a little, including something like "... which puts them in a very select group" I don't think they would get any objections, because it would be true. It was just the 'more successful' that was a bit too much.Trefalcon (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

'One world cup record with France'

Uruguay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.108.225 (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Have won two, in 1930 and 1950. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Graham Taylor's stats are wrong

According to the table, he won 20, drew 19 and lost 7, but played only 38 (surely he played 46, if the other figures are correct). Can someone find the correct stats.

--81.39.20.28 (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected this - based on sources the 38 is correct and the other figures are wrong. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Manger 'Points Per Game'

I'm not sure if this column is appropriate? After all, many England matches have not been played in point-based competitions; the implication is, I guess, 3 for a win and 1 for a draw, but this is not made explicit and is an artificial creation of someone - making it original research, I think. Anyway, it's a somewhat meaningless stat which arbitrarily places values onto results which were not there when matches were played! --Pretty Green (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If it's thought to be worth keeping, at the very least it needs a note explaining that it's an arbitrary measure of success for the reasons you mention.Clicriffhard (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Hoddle

Do we just not believe in him being England manager? There is nothing mentioned in the History. You have it going Venables -> Sven. What about WC 98? What about his comments? What about the dislike towards Beckham for a short time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekillers342 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well England have a long footballing history and I'm not sure that the dislike of Beckham is relevant in the long run. But given that we mention England's other WC campaigns, he is worthy of inclusion. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

should michael owen be going to the world cup?

Michael Owen is scoring goals for Manchester United. Should He go to the World Cup? Emile Heskey isn't even playing reguarly for Aston Villa, yet he looks a cert for the plane. Is this Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.51.236.201 (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

England's aggregate results against the Republic of Ireland accurate?

It appears the results table has misclassified England's results against Northern Ireland's IFA as being against the Republic of Ireland. Between 1882 and 1921 Ireland's results should be attributed to the Belfast based IFA which remains over the Northern Irish FA. Before southern Ireland extricated itself from Britain in 1916, the results would have not have been truly representative of all Ireland and should be attributed against the IFA. See the FAI wikipedia homepage for more specific details that explain the separation. There have only been 14 matches between England and the Republic of Ireland since the FAI and Republic was founded and certainly not what is represented on the results table. Eire4ever (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the stats? If we can get them, I'd suggest that the results v Ireland be listed separately from both NI and the Republic.Clicriffhard (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to combine the pre-1921 results with Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the "home" matches were in Belfast confirming the results as Northern Ireland and not reflective of the entire island of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland did not play its first match against England until 1946 and has played a total of 14 through 2009. An accurate reflection of how the results should be partitioned would be from the Nationwide Football Annual - latest issue for 2009-10 season - which correctly represents England vs. Republic of Ireland results from 1946-present on page 236. That record for England would be played 14, with 5 wins, 6 draws and 3 losses (included the most recent abandoned match result from 1995). You can see the England vs. Ireland/Northern Ireland results from 1882-2005 on page 287 as being played 98, with 75 wins, 7 losses and 16 draws. That seems the fairest representation and their independent interpretation of apportioning the results among the countries. A results line for Ireland can be reserved for the day when the country fields one team such as in rugby and cricket. Eire4ever (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Eire4ever (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see someone's updated the Ireland stats, so the Republic's are now correct. I would still separate "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" for the sake of keeping this table more encyclopaedic than political. Compare the situation to that of Serbia - according to UEFA and FIFA, they "inherited" Yugoslavia's history and results, but the table has one line for Yugoslavia and another for Serbia & Montenegro. No doubt if England play Serbia (now separate from Montenegro) next year, a new line will be created. It's not a question of politics, and if it were, the results from 1992-2003 almost certainly wouldn't be credited to "Yugoslavia"; but they are, because that was the name the matches were played under. Similarly, matches pre-1921 were played against "Ireland", even if they weren't actually played against Ireland. You know? Even if it was a de facto Northern Ireland team, that's an editorial perspective rather than a dry fact. If it makes all the difference, I'm sure we could have it as "Ireland (IFA)", and then anyone whose interest is piqued can click through and read up on the history of football in Ireland. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I disagree with combining the results since the "Ireland" stats were for a different team (albeit the same FA) incorporating players from all 32 counties. This was discussed no the Northern Ireland national football team Talk page where myself and another editor couldn't agree. The official stats are maintained by FIFA and they separate the stats. This should be the same approach here. --HighKing (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Captain

"Their current captain is Terry, but it wont last for long as Rooney is going to replace him very soon." What's all this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.208.113 (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Political editing of this article

There's a bunch of editors around here who try to use Wikipedia to foist their politics on the rest of us. This article has now been targetted. The main culprit is User:HighKing but others have poked their nose in as well. The idea is that because they don't like the term British Isles they try to replace it with something else, delete sentences that contain it, put unrealistic requests up for references and sometimes the result is the introduction of a falsehood. Here we have an attempt to replace BI with "Home Nations". I request that someone knowledgeable in the subject of football should decide on this matter. If there's nothing incorrect with using BI then so be it, but if it's an error to use it, then obviously replace it. The fact that some people don't like it should be totally irrelevant. Thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw it and thought, oh no! You are totally correct, it is one of the worst things about the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a central review point for inappropriate and appropriate use of British Isles, precisely to prevent edit warring. To date we have two extremes, editors who want to remove it at all costs and editors who want to retain it at all costs. A few of us are trying to take a more balanced view, supporting its use when appropriate, removing it when it isn't. In this case the normal language used for sports has been Home Nations rather than British Isles. The term Home Nations is used elsewhere in the article and it made sense to switch to that for continuities sake. In this particular case the then supervising admin took the view that Home Nations was the most appropriate along with three other editors. Opposition came from Flash (who has opposed every change regardless of the context and one other editor now banned as a sock puppet. In fact if we take out High King and Flash the vote was 3-0 for Home Nations. The pattern of throwing accusations of politics anytime anyone tries to change the term, and auto-reverting even when a consensus has been reached is part of the problem. --Snowded ^TALK 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::It is nothing more than the same old boring pov. Yawn yawn..look out of the window and see the changes, nada. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've nothing against using British Isles in the correct situation, given the absence of an alternative name that has reached what we might call 'encyclopaedic level'. But Home Nations is often more accurate in relation to football. My question would be what does the sentence want to say? If it refers to England's first match against a none-Home Nations team (in this pre-1922 context, Home Nations would include what is now independent Ireland) then the sentence should have HN. However, if it means a first game outside of the British Isles (ie an away match against a non-HN team) then BI might be more accurate. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sentence clearly refers to the tour of June 1908 in which England played Austria, Bohemia (!) and Hungary. So this refers to both England's first matches outside of the British Isles and against a non-Home Nations team (interestingly, they didn't play a team outside of the HN in England until 1923). So how about England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game against a non-British team on a tour of Central Europe in 1908. It's accurate to describe Ireland as British as at the time they were not independent. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately PG, you're falling into the trap set by the POV pushers - rewriting text to avoid using a term that some people object to. If as I think you say, British Isles is correct here, then leave it. If this article hadn't been targetted there would be no problem. Eventually BI may have been removed, or added, but it would have been done for genuine reasons, now its removal would be just to appease the POVers. Mister Flash (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thing is though, the sentence as it stands left me not knowing what was meant - I had to go to englandfootballonline and search through their match database to discover whether it meant the first none-Home Nations team or the first match outside of the British Isles. In this case, it meant both, but that's not clear in the text. So it could do with rewording anyway. And Wikipedia is about consensus - surely replacing something disliked, even if its just a small minority, by a with equally satisfactory terminology shouldn't be problematic? Pretty Green (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and makes it easier to resist changes to remove British Isles where it is being used validly. This is one of the articles where alternatives to "British Isles" are more meaningful, and more consistent with terms used elsewhere in the article. Insisting on the retention of the term regardless is as much a political POV as is removing it whenever it occurs.--Snowded ^TALK 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual edit in question here? Here it is.. England had no permanent home ground. England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. and british Isles wants changed to Home nations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC) What is the actual edit in question here? Here it is.. England had no permanent home ground. England joined FIFA in 1906, playing its first ever game outside the British Isles in 1908. and british Isles wants changed to Home nations. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See your last edit to prevent Flash falling foul of 1RR (and please use indentation if possible it makes the talk page easier to follow) --Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is no one revert here. IMO the article should be reverted back to the long term stable position. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This has your signature on it. Currently the majority of involved editors support "Home Nations" (including 100% of those editors who have a record of sayhing yes and no to British Isles in different contexts) and as Pretty Green has pointed out its more accurate and makes life easier for readers. --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a good mind to revert it, you were mistaken when you told me that there is a one revert condition on this article, the alteration here is completely wrong, the expression home nations is used to describe different things in the rest of the situations, this is about la location in general not the teams in question, it clearly should be British isles in this case, saying all the terms should be the same is not correct here, it has become totally confusing, home nations is not a location, I immediately ask myself..where is this place the home nations and I find no answer to the question, it is confusing and to be honest the change being requested is pointy and unworthy of even the tiniest of debate. Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction has been applied by at least one admin on any article where there is spill over on Irish/British national issues so I think my cautionary comment was valid. In the context of competition, its who you play against which matters. In this case the English team had only played the Home Nations prior to the date in question. The current use of Home Nations is this clearer for any reader. Pretty Green's two comments are good examples of the sort of common sense we need on this issue.--Snowded ^TALK 11:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well my main point at the moment is that the sentence is actually unclear as to its meaning no matter which term we use - it should indicate that the matches referred to were both England's first game outside of the British Isles (understood as a slightly-awkward but acceptable name for a geographical location) and the first game against a none-home nations (understood as sports teams representing the constituent countries of the UK including 'all Ireland' teams) country. My other point to note is that the whole issue can be avoided by simply saying 'British' (we could pipe link this to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article if we want) which is accurate as the Ireland national team at the time were British. Pretty Green (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No surprise to see Snowded opposing use of British Isles, but at the same time claiming he holds a balanced view. His political views are clearly no secret. Trickyjack (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)