England v Iceland one year on

[Jah Womble]

I have to admit that even I found the Iceland defeat amusing - in a 'predictable calamitous failure'-kind of a way.

This, however, is correct:

I still grumble that Iceland was seen as the biggest humiliation that England ever suffered. The Iceland team, while not heralded, did very well in qualifying, went unbeaten in the group stage, and had players in major European leagues.

The 1950 loss to a USA team comprised of players in what was essentially an amateur league was surely far worse, and yes I am bitter that people are trying to take that away from American fans.

Iceland were ranked 35th in the world: they are now ranked 22nd. The defeat against the USA in 1950 remains the biggest upset that England have suffered in their history: the team that day featured 'genuine' greats in Billy Wright, Stan Mortensen, Wilf Mannion, Tom Finney, et al - and were humbled by a side that didn't have the craft of Gylfi Siguršsson conducting the midfield. The Iceland defeat will always look worse to many because there's no hiding place anymore - in 1950, some fans back home wouldn't have learned of the defeat for several days.

I'd also pitch for the Norway defeat in the 1982 WC qualifiers as being worse than Icelandgate in terms of where the Norwegians were at the start of the eighties. They improved steadily after that and, while it remains one of England's worst performances, their effective elimination of Taylor's side from the 1994 WC qualifiers was far less of a surprise, IMO.

[Benjm]

Ah, happy days. I'd semi-warmed to the team as being less of an atrocious bunch of bastards than the Golden Generation, but it was still hilarious. And the last memory of them in competitive action for a while, for those joining the imp-led boycott of the 2018 WC.

Were the French fans doing the Icelandic clap'n'grunt routine specifically to take the piss out of England during the recent friendly or is it taking on an independent life of its own, Seven Nation Army style?

[Ray de Galles]

It was bloody everywhere for months post-tournament but, given it is spotted far less a year on, maybe the French were having a dig - especially given they beat Iceland 5-2 in the next game.

Then again, maybe the French have clung to it as a memento of the tournament they hosted so well.

[Levin]

The French version is terrible. It's too fast from the start. To be effective the first few claps have to be much more separated to build up the tension.

[Paul S]

It could have been far worse.

Imagine what the score would have been if we'd played Tesco or Sainsbury's?

[Jah Womble]

Indeed. They'd soon have our Sterling in their pockets.

And a trip to the kiosk might see us end up with ten players.

[ChrisJ]

The game would have been funny if it hadn't been so devoid of entertainment (other than the key moments, obv.).

Berba is spot on that it's not technical ability that's lacking, it's tactical development. There's no sufficiently sophisticated understanding of patterns, movement or systems. Which is why English players look so much better when well-coached johnny foreigners are organising them. Liverpool wouldn't have got half what they did for Sterling if he hadn't spent however long it was running where Suarez told him to.

I think it's slowly changing, and the fewer big names, the better as less established players are more liable to play to instructions. Southgate is actually a decent, if unimaginative coach. What tends to happen is that when faced with a good team, eg Germany recently, England will try to do the things what Gareth told them. They'll even look good but then lose anyway because Germany have been doing it better for longer. Against ''lesser' teams, a bit of EPL arrogance kicks in and they avoid doing the hard thing in favour of the easy thing; for too many British players the easy thing is to shuttle-sprint until they vomit and the hard thing is to think.

On the other hand this

Spain and Germany were lucky they could keep Luke Shaw injury free for so long.

has made my night.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

No the players are fine. The players get coached in a wide variety of roles, and tactical situations during the course of their development. Their first team managers usually have a very specific game plan that they usually have no problem adhering to. England are made up mostly of players coached by Pochettino, Klopp, conte and guardiola, and a few others were recently coached by louis van gaal. luis Suarez might have been telling raheem sterling to do under brendan rodgers, but he's not playing for a spoofer any more. he plays for Pep guardiola, he's told what to do, and does it.

The problem isn't the players, it's never really been the players. The problem is that the England team have never had a system of play, and picked players to suit that play, and rewarded good team work with praise. Instead it's always been about picking the most famous players, or the most in form players, in whatever random formation they can be squeezed into, with no effort to be able to produce periods of team play, many of which are pre-scripted. I watched Germany hammer the living fuck out of mexico the other night, and I didn't know who any of the german team were, but they were pinging the ball around like the team that won the world cup. When they found themselves on a 4vs 4 break for the fourth goal, watching the way they advanced in formation, drew the defence in, and slipped in the player on the left who had held his position was beautiful.

But the German national team has always understood how international football works. That's why they've always been so fucking good at it. And when they stopped being good at it, they went out and found out what good now meant, and learned how to do that instead. In england they either set fire to the manager, or a bunch of players, and embark on a course of rage and self flagellation which basically boils down to "The working class lack the fibre of the War generation."