Talk:England national football team/Archive 1

July 2005 scu98rkr I disagree with this sentence

"Hoddle resigned the following year after stating his controversial beliefs about the disabled in a newspaper interview"

It makes hoddle sound like he hates disabled people or somthing.

It sud be more like

"Hoddle resigned the following year after stating his controversial beliefs about reincarnation and its relationships to disabled people in particular."

My wish list for the article: Erzengel 11:39 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * World Cup appearances
 * Famous victories/incidents
 * List of team captains (let's not include friendlies or else we'll have to include Heskey)
 * Why the UK gets to field 4 teams

Would also like to show, home/away strip and team emblem and flag in a table. Mintguy

I have found a very good source for details of ALL of England's football matches up until earlier this year.[] The page states that users are free to copy the information for non-profit personal use etc.. I have emailed (yesterday) the copyright holder to get his permission to specifically use it in Wikipedia. No reply yet, but given the wording on the page, I don't think it will be a problem. Mintguy


 * Did you have any joy with the above, Mintguy? Pete 22:39, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No reply was the answer. The same information is contained at http://www.england-afc.co.uk/ I think this info is in the public domain. Mintguy

This info at http://www.englandfootballonline.com/MatchRsl/MatchRsl1872.html and http://www.england-afc.co.uk is still there if anyone is brave enough to want to import it. Mintguy (T)


 * That page has opponent, date, venue, score, match type (friendly, world cup etc) and half-time score... do we want to include all this, or miss off the last two? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Forget about the half-time score, but I would say the match type is important enough. I don't mind importing it, but given the amount of data (800-plus lines), I would suggest a separate page - List of English national football matches? Sjorford 09:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's no point in losing information if it is available. We're not going to run out of space, so we can keep the H/T scores. Mintguy (T)


 * With section editing we can be quite flexible when we chose to agglomerate or split out pages. A key test is what pages will link to the split out page. If it is just the "parent" article, then splitting out has limited value - it is better to have the data on a single topic in one place. A problem with that article at the moment is however, I appreciate, is that it is all data and no prose (see e.g. the new box at the top right). I guess it would be a lot of work and require a knowledgable person to change the World Cup, famous players, top goalscorer etc lists into a history of the team in prose. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wish this article started in a less ego-centric English way. We're still banging on about winning the World Cup nearly 40 years after the event. Mintguy (T)

So why did you move English National Football Team to England NFT ? Bob Palin 14:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The move to England national football team is to reflect that the team is known as "England" or the "England team" and not the "English team". The team name follows the name of the country. A quick check of the England team section of the official FA website, for example, makes reference only to "England" and the "England team" and no reference at all even to the word "English". "English" is certainly possible to use as an adjective here, but it seems to me that the name of the team should take precedence. In football competitions, national teams go by their national name.


 * It also makes the pages easier to follow if all the international team pages take their national name rather than the associated adjective - what do you call someone from New Zealand, anyway? How do you distinguish between the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo without using the name of the country? What about ethnic Croats who play for Serbia and Montenegro or ethnic Mongolians who play for China - is the best way to refer to the team really as Serbian or Chinese? Finally there is the potential problem of references like American football team. All very confusing unless as much ambiguity is removed as possible.


 * So that's why... - Madw 16:36, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think NFT of England would be better. Mintguy (T) 16:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So do I, although I see nothing wrong with English. Country names that don't have natural adjectives use the country name. Language is not an exercise in logic, it is all about usage. The team is called England and they are therefore the English National Football Team Bob Palin 18:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I support the name English national football team or maybe national football team of England, but I think the latter is unnecessarily long. Also notice there aren't capital letters except for on England. SimonMayer 18:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus is developing around National football team of England, and I'm fine with that too. As for length, it's just an "of" longer than what we have now and I don't consider that a problem. I'm going to copy these comments to the existing page itself so others can contribute if they want. - Madw 23:45, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a PITA, but I think "of England" is an unnaturally complex construction. Think what people would type into Google, or guess what to link to when writing other articles. On these grounds I would go for a simple England football team - it's what people actually call it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "of England" looks very strange. I think England football team is the obvious name, either with or without national. sjorford 09:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to be counted as any part of a consensus to use the 'of England' form, I simply said it was better than England NFT. I want to return to English NFT as it was before, that is the normal and natural way to refer to the team in this linguistic construction. Bob Palin 13:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Name options
Favourite option in bold

England national football team
 * Acceptable to: Pcb21, Sjorford, Madw
 * Unacceptable to: Bob Palin, Mintguy

English national football team
 * Acceptable to: Pcb21, Bob Palin, Simon Mayer, Sjorford, Mintguy, Arwel
 * Unacceptable to: Madw

England football team
 * Acceptable to: Pcb21, Sjorford, Mintguy, Madw, Bob Palin, Arwel, calexico
 * Unacceptable to:

National football team of England
 * Acceptable to: Bob Palin (but prefers English NFT), Madw, Mintguy, Simon Mayer
 * Unacceptable to: Pcb21, Sjorford,

"England national football team" just looks odd to me. Any of the other options is preferable. Mintguy (T)

"England football team" is acceptable to me because linguisticly it is "The England football team", "English football team" would not be correct as it could describe any English football team. "England national football team" looks odd because it is not written in English Bob Palin 20:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have to think how this is going to apply to other nations. Is Republic of Ireland football team or Germany football team going to be acceptable, or shall we just accept inconsistency. Mintguy (T)


 * How about putting "(football team)" in brackets? That would make linking easier - England (football team) would display as England, and it should look fine with Germany, Republic of Ireland or any other country name. sjorford 10:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I like it, although I could go for "England football team" too. - Madw 13:13, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that England football team would be the best option, however, would it be better to get a consensus on the naming of all national football teams so that there is consistency? Is there already an ongoing debate on the naming of all national football teams on some other page. Apologise if I am slow to come on to this, am fairly new...calexico 13:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought about the paren scheme too, I would prefer England (national football team) but just football team would be OK. As for consistency I think we should be consistent and originally we were by using the adjective, German nft for instance or French. The question has been raised about what to do where a suitable adjective is not available or is ambiguous and there the proper thing would be to use an apostrophe - "New Zealand's nft" for instance, not sure that apostrophies are liked in article titles though. We are building an encyclopedia, in this case in English, it's important that proper English is used. Bob Palin 00:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have stalled. As I read the above, the most favoured of the first options was England football team. Perhaps we can now consider that alongside the options and then reach a conclusion, unless someone has an alternative not already mentioned. Here goes then... - Madw 12:41, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * An alternative might be, instead of national football team, use international football team, as the team is involved in playing internationals

Indicate acceptability, with favourite in bold:

England football team
 * Acceptable to: Madw, Calexico, Arwel, Pcb21, sjorford

England (football team)
 * Acceptable to: Madw, Calexico, Arwel, Pcb21, sjorford

England (national football team)
 * Acceptable to: Madw, sjorford, Bob Palin

No votes in a while, so I suppose it's decision time. My interpretation of the above results is that England (football team) would be the most acceptable choice, but before the page is moved I'll give a day or two for others to chime in if they disagree with this interpretation. Madw 01:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusion, go for it Bob Palin 22:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting confused with the world cup record table. Why does it say something in the Early rounds and Quarter-finals/2nd group round boxes for world cups that England didn't even enter? Deus Ex 18:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Just an attempt at creating something that could be used for any team's World Cup history, easy to copy and edit for other pages, but something made more difficult by the fact that the World Cup finals have changed format so often and different years may mean different things. Madw 15:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I see. I like the design of the table - hopefully it can be incorporated into other national team pages once the design is finalised. Deus Ex 17:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

England Logo
Doesn't England have a new logo with a star on top, representing the world cup won in 1966? Other teams that won the world cup, have stars representing those victories: Brazil - 5 stars; France - 1 star; Italy - 3 stars. DragonFire 17:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just noticed that we don't appear to have an article on the defunct British Championship or Home International Championship as it was also known. Mintguy (T) 03:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Early Years
Surely there should be more in the 'early years' section. Obviously information from so long ago can be difficult to find, but what about the players from that era etc.? Ben davison 15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * England Football Online would be the obvious place to start, but given that England did not take part in the first World Cups, and up until 1920 England typically played only three matches a year (against the other Home Nations), with the odd tour, perhaps there isn't much to say. Perhaps worth mentioning are the start of the Home Internationals, the Ibrox disaster and the match against Germany where the players had to give the Nazi salute... Qwghlm 16:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
I just added the picture ofBobby Moore holding the trophy in 1966. I'm suprised it wasn't here already. There are at least 2 other pictures this page MUST have. One is the team giving the Nazi salue in 1938 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3128202.stm) the other is Terry Butcher covered in blood. (http://images.google.com/images?q=%22terry%20butcher%22) Jooler 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a pity that those photos will inevitably have some sort of copyright attached to them. Qwghlm 14:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Template
SUPPORT THE TEAM!

Add the template user 3lions to your user page! Deano 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Captains
Just a point. It says Beckham has been skipper since 1998. Surely he didn't become captain till Shearer retired in 2000. Also being a Leicester fan I remember Peter Taylor, being Leicester manager at the time, took over England for one game and in that game gave the armband to Beckham for the first time. As Martin O'Neill didn't leave Leicester till 2000 and Taylor was his replacement, Beckham was never captain till Taylor gave him the chance in 2000.

Jimmmmmmmmm February 19, 2006 10:50


 * I was certainly under the impression that it was T**** (sorry, I cant bring myself to type his name) who used him as captain first. In the 98-2000 period Adams was the 'deputy' or 'reserve' captain wasn't he, not Beckham? Robdurbar 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Google is your friend" - Beckham first appointed captain for a friendly against Italy on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 by Peter Taylor.


 * http://www.netlondon.com/news/2000-46/569F8245C3B2B7CE802.html
 * http://www.englandfootballonline.com/Seas2000-10/2000-01/M0775Ita2000.html
 * Jooler


 * I don't need Google, I know my stuff.

Jimmmmmmmmm February 23, 2006 12:13

Current player

 * I think it's fair that players like Steven Warnock are removed from the list having never played for England and not getting in squad recently. But players like Darren Bent who has been included in the last 2 or 3 squads but just ot got a run out yet should be included.

Jimmmmmmmmm February 23, 2006 10:03


 * P.S. If you check the top of the section it's say players recently called into th England Squad not player who have recently played for England.

Actually, Warnock was last in the squad for the Wales/N. Ireland games last season. Has Darren Bent ever actually been in a squad? I can't find him at the FA's site, which lists players such as Scott Carson, who were in the Summer 2005 tour squad. As there are no criteria for this at the moment, and I can't find any sites that list past squads, how about we start applying the following criteria from now:
 * Players who have made an appearance within the last two (calender) years
 * Players who have appeared in the squad but not played over the last (calender) year

I don't see any need to trawl through the page and sites to try and sort out the current list, but if we introduce this 'policy' now we can police quite easliy in future. Robdurbar 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Darren Bent been in a few squad trust me.

Jimmmmmmmmm February 23, 2006 12:12

Criteria
So I have used the following criteria to include players:
 * Have appeared in an England squad over the last year
 * Have played for England over the last eighteen months
 * Have played in the qualifying campaing for, or finals of, the current 'active' World Cup of European Championship

Changes since then have added Scott Parker, though he does not fit into these criteria (though he does fit into the earlier proposed one, which I then tightened slightly). I think that allowing 'discresion' on adding extra players is a bit dodgy, as it is not Wikipedia's place to say who may be invovled in the squad soon. I reduced the length to 18 months for the simple fact that a two year period would have meant including Danny Mills! However, from a more serious view, eighteen months or a qualifying campaing apperance reflects the fact that England squads operate (roughly) around the two big tournaments that occur every other year. I will remove Parker for now but am willing to here other arguments. Robdurbar 09:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above rationale except for one things. Basic common sense would suggest that a player like Scott Carson, who is not even second choice at his club, was only brought into the squad because of injuries or withdrawals and, for the moment, has no chance of being included in any future squad. Everybody has their own idea of accuracy but as he has never won a cap and has not been called up since the tour last summer his inclusion is unnecessary and possibly misleading. (Pally01 09:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC))


 * On the other hand though, if Robinson and James (or whoever) were both injured, he would probably be called up, at least to the squad; we are only listing five goalkeepers, with three palces in each squad. The problem when we start making exceptions is that we start making non-neutral value judgements. Robdurbar 10:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that that is the case. I bow to your greater knowledge on all things Wikipedia but you are basing part of your argument on a presumption that a) England will lose two goalkeepers and b) that Carson would be called up if they do. The scarcity of English goalkeepers is borne out by the fact that England's third choice plays for a struggling Championship side. However there are many good young English keepers, not just Carson, who are second choices for their club and it is by no means a certainty that he will be called up again. (Pally01 10:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Well... maybe we could add the criteria that players should be 'involved in their first team squad'? Robdurbar 10:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Har, har, har... (Pally01 11:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

England footballers category
I really think there should be a Category:England footballers, distinct from the Category:English footballers, or maybe as a non-exclusive sub-category of it (.: players could appear in both cats). This should just be for people who've played for the England national team; after all, all the league clubs have similar categories, so why not England? The same for the England u21 team as well. Any assents? Slumgum 21:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, go for it! If you feel so keen as to cat them seperatly, go for it! (In fact, just to annoy Chris Sutton, we could create an England B category too...)Robdurbar 23:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL Slumgum 23:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)