Talk:England national football team/Archive 2

Record defeat
It is stated to be 9-1 versus Hungary but on the History page it is 7-1. Which is correct? 125.239.233.253 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

England legends
There is soon to be an England legends v. Germany legends, shown own Channel 5. Will that warrant its place in Wikipedia? --Dangherous 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't see why, I dont think even 'five' deserves a page on Wikipedia ;) Robdurbar 18:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Six substitutions
FIFA changed the amounts of subs in friendlies to six, not five as was originally shown before I changed it.

Nick

Nickname?
Has "Three Lions" EVER been used as a nickname for the team?A Geek Tragedy 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * duh only about 9,460 times on the FA's website. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 01:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :). This gives the impression that they are the only people using it like that, though. Maybe some note suggesting that unlike a lot of team nicknames this isn't what the fans in the stands call them would be in order. A Geek Tragedy 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But we do call them the three lions. And your gogle search came up with half a million hits, what are you on about. Philc TECI 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do agree with him in theory. It's like 'Red Devils' for Man United, nobody really calls them that in every day speech, but nobody could argue it was not their nickname. -- Boothman /tɔːk/  09:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC),

What a ridiculous nickname! Three lions? when they're 11 players on the pitch for England! I never knew the England team had an official nickname. Let me guess that "three lions" came into use after that rubbish England song by baddiel and Skinner!
 * no you tw@ it came into use since there are 3 lions on the badge i bet you juch checked and feel pretty stupid now --Numberwang 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

World Cup Squad
Someone removed the 06 World Cup from latest call up, which is probably a good call. However, its in May (something like the 15th) that the official squad is announced for, not the 9th of June as quoted (this is the last date for changes on injuries collected after the official squad is announced). --Robdurbar 18:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Years link
Re WP:EL we should only have one or two 'fan' sites - i.e. unofficial ones. As we already have a couple of them and this web link is about the World Cup 1966 and not the national team I really think it shouldn't be there; put it in the World Cup 1966 page perhaps, but not here. --Robdurbar 07:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Projected line up
I've removed this as pure speculation and contravening Original research and the Wikipedia is not a crystall ball bit. Leave it to the pundits. --Robdurbar 08:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted for the same reasons. This time I deleted, also, the sentence, "I'm trying to give the public a little fucking insight, into Sven's plans, if you don't like it you can suck my....". My reason for deleting this should be obvious but, if not, please see Civility. -- Alias Flood 03:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of those starting in the team are obvious, except Carrick and perhaps Sol Campbell/Rio Ferdinand. Why is it that this page is the only one that gives a damn? -- Squadoosh 23:53, 20 May 2006 (EST)
 * It wouldn't mind so much perhaps if the lineup was any good. Carrick to start? I'd say it would be: -- Robinson Neville, Terry, Ferdinand, A Cole Beckham, Gerrard, Lampard, J Cole Owen, Rooney (or Crouch if Rooney is injured). -- But that doesn't mean you should put that lineup on here either. Wikipedia is just not the place for this. –– Boothman/ˈbuːð.mən/ /tɔːk/  09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Current players
I prefer the previous version that listed most recent squad call up rather than most recent appearence. It was more informative and kept a better record of who had recently been in the England squad. I propose to change it back? --Robdurbar 10:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, this is no longer as informative as I would like it. (Pally01 11:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC))


 * No, no-one cares who was in the squad, its about who plays, I had to get rid of sum details bt if you know the correct ones then put it in, i also started putting ages in as well which can be informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American champagne (talk • contribs)


 * I disagree. I think that it is better to include the whole squad. The aim of the list is to provide an overview of the players who are involved in the England set up. A perfect example would be that players called up to a squad who the get injured would now appear to have not been invovled; there is also now no justification on the page why certain uncapped players are listed. The squad provides a more holistic version. --Robdurbar 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ps, yeah, adding ages is a nice touch --Robdurbar 13:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

ok the changes to the criteria for current players are clearly absurd. ie no rooney, owen ,beckam, king, james, joe cole; because they happen to not have been included in mclarens first squad. the reason being that most of them are unjured. the previous criteria was fine. whoever changed it has seriously messed up. does anyone sane really think rooney, owen, joe cole shouldnt be classed as current players because they happen to be injured or suspended at the moment? --Willy turner 20:02, 11 Aug (UTC)

Lake of Balls?
Does anyone know what this means in the European Championship record

1960 - Did not enter to lake of balls at the traning ground

Seems weird?

Cheers Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.154.170 (talk • contribs)


 * Er where did you read this? Not in this article, unless it's vandalism surely. I assume the writer meant "lack of balls at the training ground. Jooler 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rivalries
We've now got pages for * Argentina and England football rivalry and England and Germany football rivalry, but we're still missing the biggie ... England and Scotland football rivalry. Jooler 11:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I might have a go at doing a first draft version others can add to after the World Cup is over. (For those who don't know, I'm the one who created the other two articles Jooler mentioned). I'm one of those people for whom all else stops for the World Cup, I'm afraid! ;-) Angmering 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah! Though I got in trouble with the powers-that-be about putting an england flag and three lions in my sig...  oh well i've got the userbox and the banner so that'll do!   DJR  ( talk ) 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Scotland is no match for England. Maybe that's why we don't have such an article?--Sir Edgar 00:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ouch... Bentley Banana 09:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Argentina-England rivalry far outweighs the Scotland and Germany one, but I think we should just have one article on all three, and other minor ones like England-Portugal etc.

Ken Bailey
Anyone remember him? - The unofficial England mascot. Famous among other things for covering up Erica Roe. He even had his own Subbuteo figure. Doesn't seem to be much info one the web about him on the wb, but I've found this. Jooler 12:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Emblem
There is a yellow star on top of it representing the 1966 victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.133.221 (talk • contribs)

Look at the old and new badges. Can people tell the difference? The newer version should be on the article.  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a yellow star,, I don't see a differance other then quality of the pixels, font, and color shades -- mo -- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 22:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all about the font - it's part of The FA's "rebranding" to make it "more in touch with the modern world" or some rubbish like that. DJR (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Star
the star is only part of the match kits (ie not training tops), it is worn by all national teams that have won a world cup, hence brazil having 5.--Numberwang 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears on the training tops. Sʟυмgυм • т • c  22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * right you are, my bad --Numberwang 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

World Cup 2006 Information Section
I've formatted this section accordingly to the guidelines, found here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams, as a sample. This Panairjdde fellow (Italian, I presume) wanted to remove this section outright (in the Korean article, no doubt) whereas I wanted this section in. To show I'm not being fussy about other national teams, I've made the necessary changes to the English article. It's quite clean and efficient so I will assume that no one has any problems with the changes.--Sazabel 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems okay to me. DJR (Talk) 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 World Cup Squads


I've removed this section because:  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   13:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's poorly titled.
 * It's not accurate. Neville and Rooney haven't played together.


 * Never will be accurate now that Owen's gone home. Bentley Banana 10:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or when England is frickin' gone home.--67.68.60.136 21:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)N00bious

Updates during the World Cup
I'm so fucking upset England are out! But I know penalties aren't our thing!

If you're first here to add to players' stats following a World Cup match, please do them all, not just the goalscorers or high profile players. Each time Beckham wins another cap, up to 13 other players do as well. That way when I update every single one, I don't get the stats wrong, look an idiot and have to see someone else correct my errors. For which I apologise.

Meanwhile, I wish Gary Neville would stop getting injured. I put a fiver on him in 1996 to win 100 caps. Bentley Banana 03:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you think poor old Chris Kirkland's dad feels, with his famous bet that his son would play for England before he was thirty? Looked like he was quids in there a couple of years ago, yet still no cap! Angmering 09:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * well hes got his money now --Numberwang 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

template
we need to edit the team's template to match other teamsTrackMonkey 02:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous past players
I've just noticed the extra text added yesterday to the Famous past players section. Does anyone consider the additional information completely unnecessary for this article?  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I say remove the whole section. It's very selective. Or at the very least move it to another article. "List of ..."Jooler 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We already have List of England international footballers. The text added yesterday probably appears (or probably should) in the lead paragraph of those players' articles. I don't want to see the list removed, but we should unless we can think of an objective way of choosing a short list of "the best/most notable" rather than "the most-capped" or "former captains".  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was surprsied to see the extra text added to each player; and I added to/embellished it because it was a little inconsistent stylistically. I'd prefer to see the list stay, but the text can be removed. I am in no doubt that the players in question all merit their inclusion. Bentley Banana 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted to the simple list. It can be deleted/restored (or whatever) should any further consensus be reached.  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk   00:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The POV of these add-ons has always concerned me. If we have a mini-list with links to those players' articles, that should be sufficient without weighing down this article with embellishments in that section. -- Alias Flood 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Penalty shoot outs
Does anyone think we need a section depicting how bad England are at penalty shoot outs. We've only ever won one and it's becoming a bit of a joke. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:08 2 July 2006
 * The Dutch team has an even worse history of penalty shoot-outs. -- Arwel (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say the fact they've won one on foreign soil puts them just ahead of us... Angmering 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Stamp or Accident?
I think it is a little early to be declaring in the article that Rooneys foot connecting with Ricardo Carvalho's groin was a definate 'accident'. That should be re-worded to reflect the ambiguity of the incident until such time as a general concensus is reached. Considering that Wayne is now the subject of a forthcoming FIFA investigation for alleged violent actions when he left the pitch and his well known short fuse I think it is a little early for POV distinctions. Apart from that I think the subject has been well written so congrats to whoever penned it Adam777 12:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Coaching staff
Seems odd to me that Steve McClaren's name is now down as manager (albeit with the 1st August caveat) and yet Tord Grip is still there as assistant. Technically true until McClaren shuffles his pack, but the very idea of Grip being McClaren's assistant in any form at all is ludicrous. Also, don't England deploy a 'head coach' rather than a manager? Bentley Banana 16:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst the term Head Coach is used by England, one usually uses the title manager in general, so I think it is acceptable. I have, however, removed Tord Grip from the article and replaced him with an English flag, and vaccant. I have done the same for the Swedish doctor. For the record, I understand newspapers have confirmed that McLaren will offer the Assistant's job to Terry Vennables, and a coaching job to Alan Shearer. I will also look up some odds for the next England captain.Abcdefghijklm 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the match commentary yesterday it said Macca is manager "with immediate effect". Logic tells me that this would be accurate. Although he might not have his own desk, he can start doing his homework.    SLUMGUM    yap    stalk   17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Future Captain
Isn't this section total speculation and not verifiable? Any reason why we should keep it without citations? --Spartaz 17:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine now as a one paragraph overview of the obvious candidates. McClaren is under no pressure to appoint straightaway but the use of Terry, Gerrard and Neville in this paragraph, while not mentioning far less likely players, at least deals with the ongoing situation of England's vacant captaincy as an issue without relying too much on conjecture and speculation. Bentley Banana 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like how someones put Vacant next to Captain in the info box at the top of the page. Not alot changed then, could have let it saying David Beckham, means the same thing! Jimmmmmmmmm 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to a Sunday Newspaper, John Terry has been appointed captain. Did anybody else see it, so that a citation can be formed. Shame really, I would have liked to see Crouch get the captaincy, the only true gentleman in the squad. Abcdefghijklm 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned the space should be left vacant until the FA announce who the captain is. Anything else by any other media source is speculation. (Pally01 13:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC))


 * There are a number of candidates, although the vice-captain under Eriksson, Michael Owen, is almost certainly out of the running. This makes the next captain likely to be either John Terry or Steven Gerrard, both of whom are captains of their clubs (Chelsea and Liverpool respectively) and popular with England supporters generally. Another club captain, Manchester United's Gary Neville, though an accomplished leader and an articulate and frank interviewee, is unlikely to get the role due to his age, although he was handed temporary captaincy for a portion of the World Cup quarter final against Portugal, in place of an injured Beckham.

Removed speculation to talk page. --Spartaz 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * any objection to my reverting the section?

--Spartaz 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This section should either say something... or say nothing. A pointless 2 sentence part is just a waste of time. 212.183.136.193 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC) TH


 * See my comments from 2 July above. I'd prefer it to be in the main body of the article. Bentley Banana 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Current players limit
What do people think of putting a condition on the current players section? That being that the list includes players who've been called up in the last year. That means we avoid any kind of ambiguity. From the present list it means removing Heskey and Dyer, which seems alright to me as neither seem to be in England contention any more. HornetMike 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought this a while ago and, in fact, if you look at the page it has the following 'hidden' text:


 * 'Criteria for inclusion: Any players capped during the latest World or European qualifying campaign; any players capped during the last 18 months; any players called to the squad but not capped within the last year'


 * To clarify, by latest World Cup or European qualifying camapaign, I meant the 'ongoing one', be it either World Cup or European... I may clarify that on the page. I felt this was reasonable at the time (and no one objected here); but it could be made slightly stricter. Under the current conditions, though, Heskey and Dyer would go in September (unless called up first) --Robdurbar 19:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vast amount of material removed
I'm not sure I'm all that happy about the vast amount of material that is being removed without dicussion by Marcus22. Out of respect for the editors who have previously worked on the article, such widespread re-writing of an article should not be attempted without discussion. Jooler 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Jooler, its not a vast amount. And I'm not sure that words like 'fitted up' and 'miked-up' are appropriate for an encyclopedia. In any case, all I'm doing is trying to make it better to read and less windy. It is too long and there are too many irrelevant asides. So the good work done by so many is being lost in the dross added by a few. Marcus22 08:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its healthy for articles to be trimmed in this way occaisionally, by people who bring a fresh reading to them. --Robdurbar 08:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rob. (The cheque is in the post!)  Marcus22 09:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dross? How dare you! It's my stuff you've edited, and as far as I was concerned it was comprehensive and not overboard. Your place to edit, but not denounce. Bentley Banana 09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As dross is scarcely a term of abuse, I assume that is a joke? Dross means trivia, and too much trivia, however well researched or well intended, weighs an article down.  You want the thing to be easily read and not lose it's readers interest?  Marcus22 10:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope when someone shows you equal disrespect for their efforts and hard work, you protest just as much. Bentley Banana 10:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps going off on a tangent here, but I think most people use the word dross as a perjoritive - http://www.answers.com/dross Jooler 11:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is going off on a bit of a tangent; I've said how I use the term but do agree that one can understand Bentley's reaction - to an extent - if he uses the term as a perjoritive. Beyond that though my point is a simple one: too much waffle spoils an article.  And the inclusion of terms such as 'fitted up' is inappropriate.  Marcus22 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on your interpretation of 'waffle'. 'Waffle' to me is material which is ill-thought, inarticulate and inaccurate. I suggest that the additions I made to give a comprehensive and categoric overview of England's post-war history was none of these. I feel like you've become judge and jury. Bentley Banana 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does the intro say? Something about not contributing unless you're willing for your material to be edited mercilessly? In all seriousness, though, a lot of the info removed concerned the achievements of certain players (record caps etc.). How about using that info to re-jig the famous past players into something more than just a list? The contributions of the likes of Billy Wright, Gary Lineker and Jack Charlton can be discussed under that heading; we could then remove the majority of players and we'd have an informative section rather than just a list. --Robdurbar 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the table?
I would quite like to have a civil discussion on this, if that is at all possible. I am not meaning to be rude.

But why do people keep on deleting my World Cup table? As far as I know it's not original research like my previous work. It doesn't take up much more space than the information which it replaces, which is just a simple outline of the positions reached. Such a table has been installed on the Brazil page without any controversy at all. Why shouldn't people have the right to know how many goals England scored in 1966, or which tournaments we didn't lose any matches in? Even the 'positions' in the third column are in no way unhelpful - they are officially sanctioned by FIFA. See National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, they're on that page and nobody has complained there.

I'm sorry if I have somehow offended anyone, but I just cannot understand the motives of those who repeatedly delete the table. Perhaps if you could be so good as to explain them to me. Cheers. --Mark J 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i removed it initially becasue it was replecating the info already in the page. But I don't think that there is any problem with placing it in instead of the current World Cup bit (though I'm not personally a fan of the idea of positions at each World Cup). --Robdurbar 17:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People can choose to ignore information that is there, however they cannot choose to read information that isn't, so I think you should put the most informative thing there, and leave it to the readers discretion. I'm for putting the table back. Philc TECI 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. --Mark J 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"they're on that page and nobody has complained there" - I have complained about them - check out the talk page Talk:National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup We're writing a letter to FIFA about the positions. I removed the table because it contains a lot of meaningless information. Why add up the games at the bottom? What does 1/18 mean? The finishing position is arguable, change the criteria and you can come up with a different position. The P/W/D/GF/GA etc.. makes it look like it was a league competition. It's a statistical deception. Jooler 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

People seem to be reading an awful lot into this positions ranking table, when it's basically just playing around with figures for the sake of it. It doesn't actually mean anything. The England team didn't think they'd finished 11th in 1950. They just knew they went out in the first round and were embaressed about losing to the USA. As far as they were concerned they endedup equal with Chile and the USA on 2 points. Goal difference or goal average were not a factor in deciding whether you were in a better position than another team on the same points. If they had ended up with the same number of points as the Winner of the group then they would have played a play-off. So why should goal difference or goal average be used retrospectively? And if you have to choose between goal difference and goal average then you can come out with different answer for the ordering of the teams. Jooler 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But this is you opinion that these positons don't matter. They are official FIFA stats so as encyclopedia Wikipedia has the right to show them. Just because you believe they are pointless doen't give you the right to remove them. They were done for a reason only FIFA know really but they've been done so they should be included. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are "rankings" not finishing positions and they are just as if not more statisically flawed than the much derided FIFA World Rankings. The only psotions that were competed for were Winnder, Runner-Up and 3rd place. Jooler 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who finished 3rd and 4th in last year's FA Cup? If someone produced a table showing team rankings would it have any merit? Would Chelsea or Middlesbrough declare that they finished 3rd or 4th on their stats? Jooler 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The FA don't produce a list of this, FIFA do though for the World Cup. You reason for deleting is a point of view, mine for keeping is fact based, and we all know wik's stance on fact v POV. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not about merit it's about fact Jimmmmmmmmm 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the fact is no-one ever competed for any 5th, 6th, 7th, etc place in any world cup ever. 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And fact is FIFA position teams in that place. You could argue nobody plays for second or third so we'll remove all stats for second and third all stats for silver and bronze medals at the olympics etc. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * People get medals for second and third in the Olympics. There is no fifth place medal. In 1930 there was no 3rd place medal. Please understand that these "rankings" are not actually finishing positions. Please look at Talk:National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup with regard to the rankings in earlier World Cups and how it is statistically flawed. Pay particular attention to Bolivia's ranking in 1950. Jooler 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is something you started and you trying to use it as fact. As the guy who repllied in the other talk page, these are just FIFA stats used to position a team no the have no real value but the exsist. Jimmmmmmmmm 15:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

4 teams?
Sorry if this has been already answered, and I'm not complaining anyhoo, but how do we (the UK) get away with having four different national football teams? I'd have thought countries like France would have been looking to have four teams themselves. -  THE GREAT GAVINI  {T-C} 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's partly to do with the four home nations being represented on the international rules committee since it started aeons ago. Plus each home nation has had its own league since the beginnings of football whereas other nations have not. (Pally01 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC))


 * There are 4 separate national Football Associations. You say " but how do we get away with it". Others would argue that it is disadvantageous. A combined GB side might have done better than England in the 1970 World Cup or '74 (when they didn't qualify for the World Cup) if George Best had been playing. Jooler 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, of course. But a team with George Best playing in it would be a UK team rather than a GB team, though. -  THE GREAT GAVINI   {T-C} 10:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Today almost certainly. In 1970 the distinction of the differences between GB and UK was not quite such a hot potato among those in control of such matters. When a combined UK team competed in various friendlies and in the Olympics in the 40s,50s and 60s they were known as Great Britain. Even now the Olympic team which includes competitors from NI or from the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands (both of which are not part of the UK) it is still known as "Team GB" or Great Britain. Jooler 10:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rivalry
This stuff about Argentina and Germany being rivals looks and reads a bit POV to me. England may well feel this 'rivalry' but do the Germans and/or Argentines? I'm not sure that they do. Can someone provide sources for this? (ie. To show that they feel this same 'fierce rivalry'). Marcus22 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main articles (Argentina_and_England_football_rivalry and England_and_Germany_football_rivalry) suggest this. -- Boothman /tɔːk/  12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

World Cup rankings
Sorry for opening up a can of worms here. I see the link cited by Jimmmmmmmmm, and understand where the confusion may arise. My feeling here is as there is not full knockout in the (relevant) Finals positions cannot be reliably be given beyond the 4th place, unless you want 5th-8th for the defeated quarter-finalists, 9th-16th for those in the "round of 16" etc. (sorry, forgot to sign 86.144.112.160 17:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Hmm, just noticed Talk:National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup - would you rather have this discussion there? 86.144.112.160


 * Not quite sure why these official FIFA figures/rankings/positions are regularly deleted. The reasons seem to be that, viewed from one angle, there are "no positions in a knockout competition".  I can understand why this view is held, but as it runs counter to FIFA's official position (and their statistcis) it is bordering on the POV to keep deleting this figures.  They should be included and remain included unless proven to be unofficial or POV in themselves.  The current status appears to be the reverse, that a POV is reflected in the article and FIFA need somehow to justify these figures!  An odd stance for a Wiki article...  Marcus22 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Try explaining that to Jooler, because I've tried but the man not quite right upstairs. Jimmmmmmmmm 10:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Jimmmmmmmmm - that is a personal attack, you also left a personal attack on my user page calling me a fucking muppet. This is not acceptable. Jooler 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Marcus - please see Talk:National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup, a letter is being drafted to FIFA in order to clarify the status of these ranks. The long and short of it is that these rankings are not finishing positions, but merely a ranking based upon an unsound statistical comparison as. It's very easy to lie with statistics, change the criteria and you can come up with a different ordering. Jooler 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jooler I appologied for the atack now will you appologies for ruining Wikipedia for everyone by arguing your POV as fact. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jooler, I can see why you dont like the rankings. (For example, why do FIFA award points for a win in a knockout competition? Seems pretty daft to me.  Likewise, if one were to use different criteria, the rankings could come out quite different!!)  Having said that, if someone wants to include them in the article, they should be allowed to do so because these potty rankings are, sadly, 'official' FIFA rankings.  So really, it is NPOV to include the figures and POV to delete them.  Sorry.  (Of course if you can rattle FIFA's cage about them and get them scrapped then it would be a different matter...).  Marcus22 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely a simple solution would be to add two optional fields to the infobox template, one for "FIFA Ranking", and in order to provide balance, one for "ELO Ranking". Covers the bases IMHO.   DJR  ( T ) 20:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If FIFA want to publish rankings for a knock-out competition that's up to them. Personally I think their inclusion suggests they are somehow significant, when in fact they are rarely discussed or mentioned. If we want to include them for completeleness that's fine too, as long as we include a note as to where they came from. I had to read the talk page to find out. ed g2s &bull; talk 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

World Cup rankings mean nothing. Nobody knows them or uses them. Bentley Banana 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, someone must find them interesting if they wanted to put them in Wikipedia. I don't like them either but, unless we can prove that they are totally unregarded - a number of articles, maybe even quotes from FA officials saying such - then I see little harm in having extra info in the article. --Robdurbar 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Players
I reverted the change that had been made to the article to include only the current squad in current players. Put simply, I think that this is not a very helpful way to do things. Someone who knows nothing about English football would come here and not know that Rooney, J Cole or Owen are England players, for example. I know that a few of those listed are unlikely to return to the side - Beckham/Dyer/Upson all stand out - but they have all been called up recently and until we can see the future or read McClaren's mind, I wouldn't want to make the page subjective by removing who we think will not be back in the squad.

Now we could change the criteria to list fewer players (only those who have been capped within the last 12 months, for example, or who were in the latest squad.... though I think it works fine as it is. Robdurbar 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a good way to do it is we first give a list of the squad called up to the most recent international, then a subsection of players called up recently (e.g. last 12 months). Then there's little confusion about the list and would prevent unnecessary edits. Chanheigeorge 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would work - and obviosuly it would stop people coming to the page, thinking 'x isn't in the England team' and removing them (As has happened over the last few days). --Robdurbar 06:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. I think one calendar year is an inarguable cut-off point (depending on your time zone ;o) ) The recent results section seems to use a similar time period.


 * One potential hurdle is players who've ben called up and then pretend they're injured and pull out of the squad. I not sure which section I would put them in, or even if a third section is needed...or maybe just an asterisk to explain.


 * Can we use this period of change to also convert the AGE column to D.O.B. as updating it isn't much fun. Perhaps a forced line-break between callup and date could reduce the width to create the extra space needed.  Slumgum   T.   C. ''  20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that d.o.b. is a good idea. If someone is called up to the squad, then pulls out, I say we leave them listed as 'called up' for thast game (following vague precedent - e.g. Robert Green listed as last in squad for WC 2006, even though he didn't make it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdurbar (talk • contribs)


 * But Steve Mclaren has stated that Beckham will recieve no further call ups, as he is building for the future, so even if pushed for a right winger he will choose a younger player. So why keep people in when the only person who has the choice has stated that they will not recieve any more call ups? Effectively Beckham is in coach imposed international retirement, and we dont keep players on here who are in international retirement for 18. As for call ups, paul scholes recieved a call up, are we going to put him in? Philc TECI 11:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Scholes officially retired from international football, announcing it for all the world to hear and reiterating it over the past two years. Beckham hasn't announced his retirement and McClaren hasn't officially said that he won't pick him. What if Wright-Phillips and Lennon are injured for example? And why would Beckham come out and say he would fight for his place if he knew there was no point? It may be that he won't play for England again but let's not shut the door on him completely. (Pally01 11:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

Sorting: Caps or Name?
The list just got sorted by name. It was a little unorthodox, but I thought it was more informative to rank players by (numerical) seniority.   Slumgum   T.   C. ''  15:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

New Version Preview
This is my copy of the new version of organising current palyers. Unfortunately I have reverted this page three times today, and the current version contains original research statements and the older version of the current squad bit. Anyway, I propose the current squad section should look like this (caps updated for Greece game):

It appears a bit smaller than it would on the page, as I've boxed it for clarity. --Robdurbar 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

{| class="toccolours"
 * width="100%" valign="top" |
 * width="100%" valign="top" |

Current Squad

 * Goalkeepers


 * Defenders


 * Midfielders


 * Strikers

Recent Call Ups
The following players have also been called up to the England squad within the last twelve months:


 * Goalkeepers
 * Defenders


 * Midfielders


 * Strikers


 * }

This is excellent, much better and clearer than the current format. I also have to point out that it might not be a good idea to bold the 'ideal first team', as we don't really know McLaren's plans for the team, for example I think Michael Owen is unlikely to be given a place in the starting line up again, and really Rooney and Crouch are the two favoured strikers (possibly with Ashton and Bent rather than Crouch, although this would be a shame!!). Good work Seivad 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I agree that we shoudln't make any presumptions of original research on what we 'think' the England team should be. --Robdurbar 10:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just changed a few things for the GK section. I've converted Age to DOB, and added a couple of breaks to reduce the width.  Because of the infobox alongside it, the GK section needs to be a bit narrower so I've removed the fixed column widths.  The infobox will probably be much shorter for subsequent squads, so will only squash the GK section. At the moment it only just creeps over onto the DF section.


 * Any reasoning behind the order of the Dropped/Called-up columns on the infobox?   Slumgum   T.   C. ''  16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I pretty much agree with all that (although, bare in mind, that future squads will cover more than one match, which might boost the length of the box). DOB is better and no, there isn't a set order, although we could alphabetize it in future. --Robdurbar 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NEEDS UPDATING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk • contribs)

2002 Greatest Sporting Moments
I really don't think this is deserving of a place in the article. There are hundreds of sports polls like this every year, each with different results. Should be removed, in my opinion. HornetMike 12:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Football
Is England playing in or against Denmark in November 2006??
 * England national football team says no. sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Assertion
SQUAD NEEDS UPDATED ON MAIN PAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk • contribs)
 * Remain calm. Someone will do all the work for you. <font face="Tahoma">sʟυмɢυм • т • c  18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dropped"?
It's a bit emotive to use 'dropped' next to the players who have not made the latest squad. "Dropped" in football terms means discarded due to poor form or ill-discipline, but at least two of those particular players - Hargreaves and Lennon - are injured. Perhaps "Absent" would be more appropriate? Bentley Banana 08:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The aim is to list players who aren't in the current squad but were in the previous one; I'm not sure how else we could express this (concisely) --Robdurbar 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "In" and "Out"? jnestorius(talk) 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol, KISS (hmm, need to cut down on acronyms). That works; the revsisions amde to the box are good as well, though. --Robdurbar 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to comment on my recent change (which was reverted) of injured to unavailable; my logic was that this would then be able to contain suspended players, when relevant. --Robdurbar 14:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How about another line for the suspended players? Quite a lot of the newspapers list those who are injured and suspended seperately. (Quentin X 15:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC))


 * I wouldn't bother. Suspensions happen too infrequently at international level. Bentley Banana 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Call Ups
This has recently been removed as a result of difficulties with a similar section at the Germany national football team. Personally I think that the problems had there are irrelevant: this is an informative section, whose removal has not been discussed here and with which we have never had any problems. We have a clear and obvious rationale behind which players are included/excluded and its removal only misinforms readers (by not giving a full picture of who is in and around the England squad). --Robdurbar 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly noit an informative section Kingjeff 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it is; for example, it informs users that Joe Cole, Scott Carson, Owen Hargreaves are members of the wider England sqaud. Indeed, to exclude players such as Joe Cole or Hargreaves from the page is to misinform; it gives the impression that they are not involved in the squad. --Robdurbar 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If they're involved with the squad, then they should be in current squad. Kingjeff 23:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But readers might be interested in players recently called, but not in current squad. What about injured players, for example?--Panarjedde 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is absolutely worth having. It's absurd that anyone is even trying to debate that fact.

England Squad section
With another fixture imminent, I propose a change in the format to reduce the amount of work needed to updated the current squad/recent callups. I changed it myself last time and it took ages.

I like the "Most Recent Squad" box, but I think its positioning is awkward. See how it intrudes into the Goalkeepers section of ther current squad. Is it possible to make it 100% width and move around its info?

How about combining "current squad" and "recent callups" to create a section for "all players called up in the last 12 months"? That way, the tables would all have the six columns (including "Most recent callup") and would not require moving around each match.

The current squad's members' names could then be highlighted with bold text. This, and a update of the "Most recent callup" column would be the only changes needed each time. <font face="Tahoma">sʟυмɢυм • т • c 12:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it - WP:BOLD etc.; the only word of caution I would have is that by merging the two sections, we risk having an increase in the number of people coming along, looking at the page, thinking 'Michael Owen isnt in the England squad' and removing him (or anyone else). But as long as we're prepared to accept that will happen, then I'm OK with it. --Robdurbar 12:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not bold text though it always looks ugly. Maybe colour the box they are in blue or something, stands out more and is easier to follow. Jimmmmmmmmm 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose a simpler layout such as the one used in Brazil national football team, Portugal national football team, France national football team, etc. The template look simpler and clear. I don't think that the section need to have the debut date of the players as it can be seen on each players page. -- Martin tamb 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion, Martin is very similar to what we currently have, except it is a non-bespoke layout. And players still need to be moved up and down every month which, alongside adding/removing the last callup column, created work. As I recall we moved away from that layout in favour of the current one.  I personally don't like the suggestion, and prefer a system similar to that used on N.Ireland, albeit with differing columns and a 12-month time limit (we need to show the last callup date).  I agree that debut date is non-essential, but it does not always appear in players' articles. It doesn't ever change, so it doesn't create any extra editing time if we leave it in, and it's useful info.
 * Jimmmmmmm's suggestion of highlighting is probably easier to implement than bold text, and it would be clearer, so it seems a good idea. It would also allow us to use a comment (e.g. |- style="background:#00BFFF" ) to help future editors. I won't be bold yet, I'll wait until Macca has announced his squad and give others time to make suggestions. <font face="Tahoma">sʟυмɢυм • т • c 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I enjoy moving those players up and down as it only happens once a month at most. Merging both section also another good idea. Anyway the latest squad has been released. -- Martin tamb 16:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerrard's number
There's a comment in the article that Gerrard always wears the No. 4 shirt wherever he plays &mdash; but didn't he wear the No. 9 shirt when he played up front against Hungary last year? Angmering 11:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The change of shirt was purely due to a change of position and formation. If Gerrard is selected in what has become the regular circumstances, he gets No.4. Bentley Banana 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But surely the very fact it was due to a change of formation and position means the article's statement that he wears No. 4 wherever he plays is thus untrue? Angmering 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)