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

Qualifying for England Squad

For information, I came to this article in search of the qualifying criteria for being part of the England team, but it didn't cover the subject - perhaps it should, because UK's particular situation makes it less than obvious: anyone with a British passport? Are people born in Scotland banned? Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.159.86 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's anyone with a British passport who is from England or gained the passport through residency in England, and anyone who is British or Irish and has an English parent or grandparent. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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?

Germany has a list of captains, so why doesn't england?

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)

why has the badge got two stars over it when England have only won once - what jammy so and so managed to dupe you into putting that up?! If only! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.94.216 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, someone's played with the FIFA ranking etc - I thought this was a locked article?! Sort it out guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.94.216 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (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)

Trefalcon do you really believe Olympic medals rival world cup wins, and two losing final appearances are equal to a world cup win? The world of football doesn't care about your anti english bias, even if you have contaminated wikipedia with it. At very worst England are the 7th most successful side in international football history. Anyone would take a world cup win over any number of olympic wins, losing final appearances, or euro wins. Trickyjack (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Trickyjack the objective here was to follow Wikipedias standards, which prohibit the use of unverfiable claims and loaded unreferenceable language. The long explanation was for the sake of fans like yourself whose pro-bias would color their word choice. I've nothing against the 3 lions and wish you the best of luck in South Africa! Trefalcon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (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)

Hello. I've added a link to the Ireland national football team to the Northern Ireland line - it's a good compromise for the minute, although I think the best thing would be to add a separate line for "Ireland" including all games played 1882-1921, along with a footnote to both N-Ire and R-Ire saying that until 1950 they both picked their players from the whole of Ireland. So, if someone can find the stats for 1882-1921, it'd be cool if they could do this. BigSteve (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Captain

"Their current captain is John 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) Feb 5th 2010: BBC: "When I chose John Terry as captain, I also selected a vice-captain (Rio Ferdinand) and also named a third choice. There is no reason to change this decision" So Rio Ferdinand should be the captain. Until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.248.119 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "covering for" in a captaincy, you are either the captain of a team or not. Right now Gerrard is the captain, once Rio is healthy, he might be a captain, or he might not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.253.161 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerrard isn't the captain. He's the vice-captain. In the event that the captain is injured, the vice-captain stands in his place. Ferdinand is still the captain of England. Woolwich (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rio Ferdinand is not on the current england squad so how can he be the current captain. Steven Gerrard will hold the captaincy for the rest of the season (the end of the 2010 FIFA world cup) and is therefore the current captain. Smithdan86 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If the captain's injured it doesn't mean the vice-captain becomes the captain, it just means the vice-captain performs the captain's duties. Yes Ferdinand's injured but that doesn't mean he's relinquished his captaincy. At least that's my point of view. But I dunno. Considering everyone seems to disagree with me I've tried to make a compromise in the infobox. Woolwich (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand is the de facto captain. Gary Neville was out of the Man Utd side for a season and it didn't make Ryan Giggs the captain. As there is so much toing and froing over who should be the captain in the infobox, Woolwich's compromise is good. God help us when England are out out/win the tournament though :-) Quentin X (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with that compromise. Smithdan86 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2010 (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)

I have a track record of supporting its use on several articles TrickyKJack, try checking your facts. --Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a low-level revert war, is there support for any other term? Why not simply 'outside of the United Kingdom'? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Having been through these debates several times its more important to keep to cited sources. I must admit I thought reference to British Home Championship would (i) match the sources and (ii) be seen as a compromise.--Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

and (iii) not include British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

the use of which is not supported by citations (to complete your addition) --Snowded ^TALK 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Majority of caps/goals wrong...

For some reason, maybe spam, many of the current squad and recent call-ups sections caps are wrong. I have edited a handful but they all need to be looked at. For instance, Joe Hart is listed as having 6 caps when he only has one appearance to his name. 92.236.185.219 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone changed all the caps last week, a very subtle form of vandalism I guess. I'm walking away from my computer now but will look at this when I get back; otherwise if someone else could do this? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable former players

I just noticed that the list of notable former players taken from the English Football Hall of Fame hasn't been updated with the 2009 inductees however I haven't bothered to do it because I personally think that it should be removed altogether. The hall of fame is based on contribution to English football overall not the England team specifically. Hence Ian Wright is there even though his international record was pretty poor and soon I expect Matt Le Tissier and Andy Cole will be inducted and they definitely can't be considered to be notable former players. Whereas Terry Butcher isn't there (yet) even though he is clearly a more notable player than Ian Wright in terms of international football. Plus the list is just going to get longer every year. So does anyone object if I remove the list? Truly notable former players can be mentioned in the text (if they're not there already). We could also increase the top scorers and most appearances list to 20 to cover a few more notable players if people feel this is needed. If you object please comment here otherewise I'll make the change in a few days time. Mah favourite (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and deleted the list. If anyone thinks that such a list is necessary then I think a new source is needed, maybe a fan poll or magazine article rating the most important England players. Personally I don't think the article needs it though. Mah favourite (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a Shambles

Look at the whole thing it's terrible. There aren't any sources on the Japan and Mexico games, surely they shouldn't be listen until there is a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.36.170 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I've removed them. We had a series of people adding false fixtures and these have obviosuly been left over from them. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article. --Pretty Green (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

FA confirmed those 2 matches ages ago... Put them back up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/03/england-world-cup-warm-up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.113 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Active players

Regarding the most capped list, what is the definition of an "active" player? Gary Neville hasn't played for England for 3 years and Michael Owen has not done so for 2 years, so it must be stretching the point to call them "active" although neither has announced international retirement and both are still active at club level. 91.110.214.234 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, an active player is anyone still playing professionally. Don't forget that Neville was in a squad as recently as last summer. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Hi! It would be great if someone could write about the meaning of the coat of arms of the national football team, what each symbol means (for example, the 10 flowers) and why change the color respect the Coat of Arms of England, it's only by design or has any meaning? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.182.165 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

crest history

why is there no information regarding the crest history, like there is the team colours history? The England crest was recently (2009) changed from a darker blue to a softer, lighter blue and quite a while before that we used to play with just the 3 lions and no ENGLAND banner above.. how about some info on the changes over time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.7.253 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Verb Number Agreement

With regards to the first sentence of the second paragraph (i.e. "England are one of seven national teams to have won the FIFA World Cup, which they did in 1966 when they hosted the finals.", shouldn't the sentence construction read: England is one of seven national teams to have won the FIFA World Cup, which it did in 1966 when it hosted the finals.?

Similar to "England is great, it has beautiful landscapes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.74.249 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When talking about collective nouns in British English then the plural is generally used; this differs to American English. For example: "Manchester United are an English football team"; "The New Orleans Saints is an American football team". In the sentence in the intro, 'England' refers to the England football team so is considered plural; in your example, 'England' refers to the country, so the singular would be correct. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.149.217.169, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Joe Cole 8 November 1978 (age 31)" to "Joe Cole 8 November 1981 (age 28) as per his wiki page

81.149.217.169 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have used a reference from the Joe Cole page for this statement. Chevymontecarlo. 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Change Captain to Steven Gerrard in article ... everywhere

Change Captain to Steven Gerrard in article ... everywhere 99.52.151.170 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand is still the team captain. --Pretty Green (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Steven Gerrard is the current england captain, Rio Ferdinand has not been selected for the current england squad due to injury 16:51, 11 june 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.61.210 (talk)

The current England captain is Stephen Gerrard Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Draws and penalty shootouts

1.^ – Draws include knockout matches decided on a penalty shootout.

Is that usual? Is it standard for WP?

Ordinary Person (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, yes. I could be corrected though. Woolwich (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

no it's not. Not at allWhatzinaname (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fourth place, semis

The World Cup record table shows Fourth place, the Euro record shows Semifinals: these refer to the same kind of event, but are represented differently. Maybe there should be a standard on this.Ordinary Person (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The Euro record shows semifinals because there's been no third place playoff since 1984, so there's no way to know who came third or fourth. The World Cup has this playoff though. Woolwich (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

David Beckham as Assistant Coach

Shouldn't David Beckham be added to the list of assistant coaches? See: David_Beckham#Coaching_career —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgespee (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, David Beckham is part of the England world cup staff, he has no direct coaching duties within the England world cup squad. Why shouldnt David Beckham, Stuart Pearce or the rest of the touch line staff be listed as assistant coaches? Simple, its not their job. Smithdan86 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is his role? It must be something(?) because he's sitting in the dugout at the games, so he must have a technical role of some kind. --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Capello says He sees Beckham, who has 115 caps, as a mediator between management and the players and as an English member of the coaching staff --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely bogus team stats to be removed unless fixed

Friendlies do not count, only competitive. And matches lost by penalty kicks are matches lost by penatly kicks, not matches "tied" or "drawn".Whatzinaname (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct. --Pretty Green (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

drug testing

This was added and I can't see that it is relative or that england are involved at all.

In July 2009, the FA was in talks with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over the FA's proposal to comply with the WADA international anti-doping code (as other UK sports such as rugby, golf and tennis have already done). The FA was at the time under pressure from organisations including UK Sport and Sport England to comply with the code and to put forward the first 30 players of the English national football team for testing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2009/07/decision_time_for_the_fa.html. There were disputes over some aspects of the code, which would require the FA to put forward 30 members of the England squad to be the "testing pool". Only these players would be able to compete.

This hasn't been taken up so what value has it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The section that was removed was entitled "Squad Drug Testing".

It is true that this issue no longer makes headlines, and some assume that there is a stalemate or truce regarding it. For good reason the section has been removed from the article for now. However, if the issue becomes controversial again (when contracts come to be renewed, etc) please re-add the section to the article.

Although, the talks were with the FA, they were about the England National Football Team and have relevance to the squad players, so this is the correct article for this section. If the "30-man testing pool" is implemented it will certainly have an effect on squad tactics, as only 30 members of the squad will be able to compete. This is why it is relevant. Cheers, telewatho (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Penalties

I think we should add that England has had difficulties with penalty shootouts, because this is a kind of symbol for the team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.212.243 (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup table

I think that the position column should be removed from the World Cup table. As far as I can see there is no reason for most of the given positions (for example, in what way did England finish 13th at this world cup?). If there is a genuinely valid position, ie 1st or 4th, then it is already shown in the previous column. Any objections to removing this?

Also if anyone else wants to go ahead and make the change (assuming no objections come up) then that would be good because I don't know how to and so will probably have to spend a while working it out! Thanks. Mah favourite (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

World XI

says in the all-time team record, won 1 against 'World XI'. incase you didnt know, World XI is a fictitious best-players team created for FIFA video games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.77.44 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Football_League_Centenary_Tournament&oldid=427400154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.91.105 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

first defeat?

There is something that I did not understand

"Their first ever defeat on home soil to a non-UK team was a 0–2 loss to the Republic of Ireland on 21 September 1949 at Goodison Park. "

"A 6–3 loss in 1953 to Hungary, was their first ever defeat at Wembley by a team from outside of the British Isles."

but which,exactly, is the first defeat? against who? when? where? at home or away?

http://www.englandstats.com

http://www.thefa.com/England/Results

http://www.iffhs.de/?390a857fcf027cda17685ac03e0f827dcdc0005fdcdc3bfcdc0aec70aeeda0a3e8e003e0f518

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/male.html#

these sources "say":

07.03.1874 Glasgow - Scotland - England 2: 1

03.03.1877 London - England - Scotland 1: 3

I m not a so deep fotball expert , so someone could confirm it?--Shortahead21 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the game against Scotland in Glasgow in March 1874 is the first defeat, and the 1877 was the first defeat in London. England were soon losing quite regularly as Scotland was comfortably the strongest team in the world during the 1880s. In fact, England didn't beat Scotland between 1880 and 1888. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Star

Where is the logo's star for winning the World Cup in 1966? --79.153.95.21 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The star isn't included in the team's emblem. The star resides proudly above (or around) the crest to show that England have won a World Cup 92.6.181.247 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) (British GM (Not Logged In))

Pearce

Which source give Stuart Pearce as caretake-manager? This BBC article is linked to, but all that says is "FA head of elite development Gareth Southgate suggested Under-21 head coach Stuart Pearce will be in charge". The fact that Southgate said this makes it worthy of mention, perhaps, but I don't think it's enough to use as a reference for Pearce actually being the caretaker-manager. matt (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no source stating that Pearce is caretaker manager, so I have changed the infobox to say 'vacant' instead. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

here is the source http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12016/7498974/Pearce-to-lead-Three-Lions Mikegegger (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Crest

There seems to be a pretty major edit war going on about the crest. The FA's website seems to only use the blue version, but why don't we add the red one as a "crest" subsection under the colours section anyway? If it's been played with, it'd be nice to have it in there. BigSteve (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean when are we ever going to see this crest used other than on the home jersey. The away jersey will most likely use the old one and on TV and tabloids it will always be the old one as well. What is the point of putting it up in the infobox when the only time we will see it is on the home jersey? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But would that be legitimate fair-use of a copyrighted design? We already have the official crest at the top, and stating in the prose that the new shirt features an all-red variation is fully informative without using a further non-free image.

On another note, during the edit-warring it was pointed out that the crest as featured on the FA website no longer includes the 'England' text above the shield. Whilst a poor rationale for changing to the red version, it is a valid point in regards to our current image. Should the existing version not be modifed to remove the text? AJSham 13:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this isn't the first time a team (England even) has worn a crest that is a different color from the official crest. In fact, if I recall correctly, England's primary kit at the World Cup in 2010 had a white crest on the white shorts. That didn't warrant changing the image on the page to the all-white crest. Just because the crest has been modified for a kit is no reason to deviate from the official crest. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of them are inappropriate ('09 crest is inaccurate, '12 crest is only a shirt variation). Personally, I'd use the red one, as it is the most 'correct'. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes no difference. Fact is that this crest closely resembles the actual logo and that its like that on the away jersey as well as on TV. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The current crest was acquired from an official source, was used in official material (and still occasionally is), and is still in use by many other sources such as TV and press - even Pearce was wearing it. Whilst it would be better if we could source a version more closely resembling the one on the FA site, this 2009 version is far superior to the red version which, as stated before, is merely a feature of the shirt design. There is significant precedent for kit designs featuring alternatively coloured versions of the official badge; eg. the one mentioned by Kevin, a former France home shirt in which the logo was all gold, and the Chelsea away kit on which the badge was black-on-yellow. None of these designs meant that the official logo had changed, and it is ridiculous to assume that is the case here. AJCham 01:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice find mate. This proves that the crest should not be changed yet. Heck look at the India national football team which I run, the logo on the jersey 2 years ago had that logo on the page currently but it was inside a triangle. Yet we still did not change the logo because of what the media where using and what the away jersey was. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The logic of "the away kit doesn't have it so it's not genuine" is flawed, they just haven't made a new one yet. When they removed the blue England bar from the home kit in 2009, the away kit still had it, until they had a chance to change it a year later (Accrington Stanley did this recently iirc). Maybe that's the plan here; we just don't know. I am aware of the various edited logos (York City and Glasgow Rangers for example wear different badges on their shirts compared with the website logos). What the media use isn't exactly relevant (in my opinion) - various media outlets call Nottingham Forest 'Notts', that doesn't make that the team name. New logos (especially ones that are only slightly different) take time to become used by all and sundry. Just my take on the matter. It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That still does not explain why that new crest should be used NOW. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If the reason that the old '09 badge isn't used in any meaningful capacity (one article vs. every other instance of the 2010 badge) any more isn't enough of a hint, I don't think anything else will be. Personally, I'd sooner see the 2010 badge used ahead of the 2012 badge, but still... It's Malpass⁹₃! (_drop me a ^___) 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The crest is one of the least interesting things about the England team - in fact it's a stupid issue to be editing about. Get this sorted, but please stop disrupting the article with edit wars. To give some perspective, I had to trace through all these stupid crest edits to work out that players such as Tom Cleverly and Kyle Walker had, in well-meaning but misguided edits, been removed from the article. I was able to replace them but this stupid dispute made it difficult to edit the actual things that are interesting about this article, ie, the players who play in the England team. So you know what - just leave one version in and stop editing because no one cares. Pretty Green (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Aww, that's a shame isn't it? --2.127.75.143 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, the above post is a bit over dramatic :) But the sentiment remains that to disrupt this article over what is essentially a side issue is a bit dumb. Pretty Green (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the crest was changed again. Have we even reached a consensus on this yet. Until we actually do make a final decision the crest should remain the 2009 one. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(Sigh) I thought it was settled. I've not seen any decent justification for using the red crest to illustrate the article. That is the crest as it appears on the home shirt only. The away and goalkeeping jerseys feature different designs and everywhere else the crest appears it is the familiar blue. However, referring back to the concerns that the 2009 version is inaccurate I've uploaded an updated version that reflects current usage (i.e. without text). This really should be no longer an issue. AJCham 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'll not do so yet in case this edit is contested, but if we can consider this resolved then the old version of the logo will have to be flagged for deletion as we can't have old revisions of non-free images. AJCham 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have the picture of the old crest but without the words can you please upload it. Thus ending this debate. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Already done - I've uploaded over the previous version. There's no point uploading it separately, as we'll only keep one version anyway - although it does render the filename technically inaccurate (still saying 2009), but we can always move it later if it bothers people. AJCham 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Hopefully no one has an issue over a file name so as of now I think we can all say that the verdict is to keep the old/newer crest (without the words England). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wales

How are Wales the traditional rivals of England? What source has this come from and what criteria is being applied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.45.126 (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

Where Sir Alf Ramsey is referred using the Sir prefix, Sir Bobby Robson should too. 82.35.198.26 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just came here to say something else, but I have to say....what the hell? Are you asking for sources for Robsons Sirness? Cos check Sir Bobby Robson. I can't see how you came to the decision to refuse this request. 92.15.58.16 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Potential upcoming fixtures.

Upcoming fixtures section lists the opening three euro games, then just world cup. Would a line between them linking to Euro knockouts explaining more euro matches are possible be a good idea? 92.15.58.16 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking of putting a criticism section

I believe there is a enough third person information to put a criticism section. Because the national teams football style has been analysed to death by the press in the UK and abroad what does anyone else think? Here ares some links I found. See below. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

There is probably merit in such a section (I note you added a 'playing style' section 11 minutes after writing the comment above) but as the article is about the England team over its entire history it shouldn't just cover recent failings. Things like use of W-M, redefining of play after the 1953 defeat by Hungary, Ramsey's Wingless Wonders, etc. It should try and be balanced though; I'm sure that there's plenty of coverage of praise for certain aspects of the national team's game. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this section should be included because England's playing style has been completely different under different managers thoughout history and in recent times, for example under Capello it was more possession based, and the tenures of Robson, Venebles and Hoddle were possession based play as well, and Ramsey's successful side that won the world cup and reached semi finals of 1968 euro championship did not use exclusively longball tactic either. The defensive, 'long ball' style of Roy Hodgson has been introduced more recently, rather than it being a consistent phenomenom of the last 10 years(Sven used varying styles), and will likely change as his managerial tenure progresses, so I don't think it merits a section because it is innacurate to say it has been a consistant tactic throughout England's historyBen200 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

England against Italy

The england vs italy loss for england hasn't been accounted for in Roy Hodgson's row on the managers table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiedwi (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Euro 96 on Home Soil

Shouldn't there be a red outline box around the UEFA European Football Championship for 1996 to indicate this tournament was played on home soil (just as the 1966 World Cup is shown) ? This would be consistent with the article for Germany showing their home soil tournaments in 1974, 2006 (both World Cups) and 1988 (Euros). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.124.118 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)