henry14 - When l was looking in the group that England is in l have come to terms that Israel can spoil the party and England might be seen scrambling for dear life and now that they are allowed to play in Tel-Aviv, l see them going all the way. They have not lost in 13 internationals and last year they pushed France to the nail. If Croatia can defeat England l see them in hot trouble as they are in a very tricky group and this might be one hell of an upset. Mind you Liverpool were push to a greater extend by a good Maccabi Haifa side so they are a strong side in my opinion. How do you rate the Israelis?

djinima - Bobby, my question for you . . . and this may seem like a dumb one. . . but why is Israel in UEFA? When did they become a part of the body?

Bobby – Initially I discounted Israel, particularly given that they were banned from playing at home. That has now been rescinded. I thought Croatia and Russia would battle it out for second place with England qualifying as group winners. But now I can see how Israel could make it through to the finals. The biggest obstacle that they face is actually winning games and this is a situation where an unbeaten record is actually an impediment. They may be unbeaten in their last 13 qualifying games but seven have been drawn and they have only six wins. In fact if they had traded wins with France or the Republic of Ireland during WC 2006 qualifying instead of drawing, they would have made it to Germany.

Making yourself difficult to beat is one thing, but going out and winning games is something very much different. So although Israel has to receive a lot of respect for coming back seven times during the current unbeaten streak to gain points, they have yet to show that they can beat any of the big countries of Europe.

As for Israel’s place in UEFA - it is politics. Israel has jumped around a number of Federations – including being part of Oceania at one time! Wikipedia has a good rundown of the checkered history.

In the short term it makes it more difficult for Israel to qualify through UEFA but the upside is the standard of Israeli play is going to continue to rise given that the top club teams can also participate in the Uefa Champions League and Cup.

realmadridcffan - Even though it is very early, who do you think has been the biggest surprise and disappointment so far. For my biggest surprise, I would have to say Scotland. Never would I have thought they would win three in a row this early. My biggest disappointment is got to be Spain. They have played brutal thus far. The rate they are playing, they might not even make it to Euro 2008.

Bobby – I think if anyone had said that Scotland would be sitting with a 100% record after three games the barman would have cut them off. But it is early days and the situation could turnaround very quickly – a loss in Kiev against Ukraine, Georgia comes to Hampden in March and defends stubbornly then a trip to Italy and another loss is very possible. Nine points from 3 games in fantastic, but it could easily become ten points from 6 games and third place then becomes a more realistic goal.

I would agree that Spain has to be the biggest disappointment. The only silver lining to their dark cloud is that both their losses have been away from home. But with two losses already they do have their work cut out.

If you look at the UEFA 2006 World Cup qualifying groups, three required the countries to play 12 games (the same as six of the seven Euro qualifying groups), and the other five required 10 games each. Out of the eight WCQ group winners no country lost more than one game and five of them were unbeaten. Poland and Sweden went through as best runners-up after dropping six points each and both finished a massive 9 points ahead of the third place countries. The other countries that went into the WCQ play-offs dropped anywhere between 9 and 12 points.

You can then guess that to make it through Euro 2008 qualifying, countries should be aiming for between 24 and 27 points with it likely closer to 24. That means a country might be able to drop 12 points in 12 games and still make it through as one of the top two finishers. By dropping six points in their first three games Spain can now only afford two more losses or three draws (or a any combination) if they hope to stand a chance of progressing. That makes life very difficult and I think it shows how important a good start is to ultimate success.

AlexMorph - This is a question that has been in my mind for a long time, and I've discussed it with many to no certain conclusion. Why is it that England cannot control the ball AND attack simultaneously? If they go ahead against weak opposition then they do quite fine to shut them down and pass the ball back and forth, but eventually it will break down and the other team will spring on a quick break. England seemingly have no collective conscience as do teams like Argentina, Brazil, Arsenal, Barcelona, Lyon. Even with some of their more creative players (Joe Cole for example) the attack is more of a one-off flare and not a succession of intricate moves and innate understanding. Lyon is still a fluid team despite Houllier, so why can't England be one now that Eriksson is gone?

kirbym - AlexMorph makes a good point. Even England's victories are so often one-offs, saved by a miracle free kick, an own goal, etc., while the pundits say "They haven't quite gotten started yet," etc. They struggle rather than flow. It goes together with a lucklessness that goes back decades, showing up most often against Latin/Mediterranean teams and in penalty shootouts. Tinkering with lineups and formations doesn't go deep enough--it's something fundamental in their approach that's missing. The spirit is always there: They "go down fighting" but they do go down, unable to string together a real attack when needed. I'll also be interested in hearing Bobby's thoughts on this.

CIAO - I too think England has a great pool of players (minus the keepers) to select from. However, I can see two issues: 1. Most British players remain in England and are not exposed to European football or at the international level; and 2. the game is different in the EPL than in any other league and it takes the national team players some adapting for the international level...

I think the Lampard-Gerrard combo has been tested and it failed. Lampard and Gerrard can't seem to catch the same level they perform with their clubs on the national team -so isn't it time to look at other alternatives? Such as implementing either Lennon or SWP to the right wing. I think the national coach needs to consider that SWP should still be in consideration for a spot given that at Chelsea he is fighting for a spot to play with likes of Lampard, Ballack, Makelele, Robben and the list goes on... Hargreaves and/or Parker as the holding midfielders. How about pushing Ashley Cole up to left wing midfield while Joe Cole is out injured... Which leaves a spot behind two strikers for either Lampard or Gerrard -a little friendly competition never hurt anyone. It's time to go back to basics...

What are your views on the matter?

Bobby – Glenn Moore wrote an interesting article in the independent on “When did England last play well?”

To debate this topic properly would take a very long time. For what it is worth I think it is mainly down to technique. I remember  a long time ago reading that after some initial success Nick Faldo completely rebuilt his swing because he believed his technique that had brought some success would not stand up to the pressure that he would face if he wanted to be the best in the world. He needed to work on a honing his technique to the stage that when he was under intense pressure his swing would not break down and essentially muscle memory would take over. (I read a not dissimilar piece that suggested that the reason Greg Norman failed so often in the majors was that although he had incredible natural talent his technique was flawed and under pressure this flaw was magnified.)

The point I am trying to make is that British players generally are less technically gifted than players from what we consider to be the top continental countries. They generally fail to perfect things like first touch.

The value British fans place on effort over skill compounds the problem. When was the last time you heard an English fan complain that his club just didn’t have enough good players? It doesn’t happen very often. Normally it is put down to lack of effort and the players just not wanting it enough. I don’t think you can be successful in football without effort and organization but at the top level it is not going to be enough on a regular basis if your players are devoid of some basic skills.

The best book I have read lately on the subject is “The Italian Job” by Gianluca Vialli and Gabrielle Marcotti. The book looks at how the game has developed in Italy and England and looks at the some of the reasons why things are the way that they are. It also challenges some of the conventional wisdom and stereotypes that are trotted out on a regular basis. It includes some great insight from the likes of Mourinho, Ferguson, Capello, Lippi and Wenger.

Venti_vidi_vici - I feel that in group format, the object is to do better than your main rivals. Croatia and Russia are England’s main rivals in the group, and they cannot afford to slip up against either; all three teams expect to qualify. If they must have a no-show, better to do it last Saturday, and then come up with a positive result against Croatia. Basically Wednesday’s match is a good old fashioned 6 pointer.

Also, if Scotland is now seriously thinking about qualifying, their match in Kiev is another 6 pointer, because down the stretch it’ll be a four-way battle for two spots (and they know that there is not room for both of them in the top two).
Just like in the domestic leagues, teams have to get results against their main challengers, and equally important, shoot par against the rest.

Although it is so difficult to gain any sort of momentum in these group matches (because of the drawn out schedule), can Scotland carry their high into Kiev and come away with something on Wednesday?

Bobby – Well we will find out in a few hours. The six pointer comment is spot on and it reinforces how important it is to get full points off the lower teams. If you can get full points and your qualifying rivals stumble it places pressure on your rival in the head-to-head encounters forcing them more often than not to push for a win.
Perhaps the simple formula is Max points at home + max points versus minnows = Euro 2008 Finals – easily stated but not so easy to achieve!

bigdavedisaster - I am a young man but to me that is the worst loss in the history off modern Irish football. Why is the FAI still backing Staunton? My only hope is that the 3 goal loss to Cyprus....Cyprus!! is rock bottom and we can only move forward from here. I have always thought that Ireland has been able to rise to the challenge when playing the great teams of the world and tends to play down to other "lesser" competition but this is something completely different. It’s an embarrassment plain and simple and I don’t think Staunton is the man to right this ship.

Bobby – I was surprised when the FAI hired Staunton given his lack of managerial experience. It would have made more sense to have Sir Bobby Robson in charge with Staunton as the heir apparent. However, with Sir Bobby’s illness it would have made little difference. You look at the line-up and there were some very good players starting for Ireland so that isn’t an excuse. The game against the Czech Republic today is a must win. Otherwise Ireland will be sitting with 8 or 9 points dropped with only three games gone and they will never catch Germany, the Czech Republic or perhaps even Slovakia.

I think Staunton is done even if Ireland beats the Czechs. It was a boneheaded move by the FAI. 

ascoli - You put it well when you point out that England has yet to learn from its lessons. It is a good team with good players, but they all need to just relax and keep perspective. Congratulations on Scotland's big win. I would have loved to have seen that game. Were the ball boys as much a factor as the French Coach claimed?

Bobby – As I watched the game I was concerned that the ball boys were returning the balls too quickly. I read an interesting piece that said that Craig Brown a former Scotland manager had mentioned to Wattie Smith that the “ball boys” at the France – Italy game in Paris in September were considerably older than the ones you would normally see.  The point was that France wanted to play a high-tempo game and wanted the ball back in play quickly hence the more mature ball retrievers. If the story is true then Domenech might have a point – even it is one that makes him sound a bit silly. The French had their chances and they didn’t take them. I don’t see how that could be the fault of the ball-boys.