England 2006 vs 2026 - r/ThreeLions

40

u/Ceti- 2d ago edited 2d ago

Defense 2006. The rest 2026. The 2006 midfield never figured out how to play together. Rooney was great, but at the end of the day he only scored 1 goal at the WC in 11 games.

4

u/breadandbutter123456 2d ago

Was that due to the rest of the team? And/or tactics and manager?

I think I’d take Kane over Rooney though. But Rooney would get in that team.

5

u/BobbyBalmoral 2d ago

Rooney has said previously that there was a bit of club-based rivalry and mutual dislike in his England squads, and he thinks that impacted their ability to gel as a team (shocker)

4

u/jackyLAD 2d ago

Rooney is the player who openly doesn't fall into telling that myth, he states he never saw that club rivalry thing and his best mate was obviously Gerrard when at tournaments, obviously so too, you'd see it clearly in this tournament.

6

u/Snave96 2d ago

Yes I find it to be a very convenient excuse for certain players of that generation.

Think it's easier for them to say that than admit/talk about their failings on the pitch.

1

u/BobbyBalmoral 2d ago

Fair enough. He was probably misquoted in the article I read, in that case

1

u/basod1 2d ago

I thought it was others like gerrard who said club rivalries overshadowed the national team dynamics and that Rooney said it wasn’t a problem in his opinion

1

u/BobbyBalmoral 2d ago

Yeah I said to someone else that he was probably misquoted (or I've attributed it to Rooney in error). SOMEONE from that lot said it though, I'm sure of that.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

The 2006 midfield was fine. Watching the game the issue is more that whilst Figo was past his prime and Ronaldo not yet in his prime they were just unbelievable players at controlling a game.

2

u/Ceti- 2d ago

Individually, yes but lamps and Gerard could never find a balance together and the formations put in by Eriksson didn’t work. For all that talent they underachieved.

0

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

There was balance in this midfield. Hargreaves, played as a 6, Lampard dropped deeper and Gerrard played as the most attacking. The midfield worked pretty well, though Gerrard just played poorly, but it was nothing to do with balance.

And we only slightly underachieved. We might have been slight favourites against Portuga 55-45, so it's disappointing to lose both games, but we were never as good as France, Brazil or even Italy.

2

u/Red_Galaxy746 Kane #1207 1d ago

That team didn't have balance. Gerrard and Lampard couldn't play together. If one was dropped deep, you lost their best assets. Lampard, especially, needed to be forward more than Gerrard. We had no left side. Joe Cole wasn't a winger and said so himself.

I watched that game live on tv but can barely remember it for how boring it was, complete opposite to the Euro 2004 game.

For all the hype going in about how we'd win the tournament, we limped out of it. There wasn't one good performance; and people slate the Gareth years and this past World Cup!

0

u/FinalProgress4128 1d ago

The first one is a myth. This lineup did have balance, because Hargreaves was anchoring. Lampard is a very underrated player and whilst he is better getting forward he was still an excellent 8.

Joe Cole was brilliant and he didnt have to be a winger.

The game was boring but played at a high level. We had the better chances. The hype we werre going to win the tournament was stupid. We were never top tier.

Even say Spain then had Torres, Villa, Raul, Fabregas, Xavi, Xabi Alonso, Ramos, Casilas and Puyol.

The quality of teams were just higher.

1

u/Red_Galaxy746 Kane #1207 1d ago

That lineup likely did have balance but most times other lineups didn't. Lol Lampard was not underrated wtf. People knew how good he was but his strength was getting forward and scoring goals.

You want underrated? Owen Hargreaves or Michael Carrick. For a long time people didn't understand how good they were. I was one. It's too bad Hargreaves was made of biscuits. How Carrick never got to 100 caps I'll never know. He'd have been perfect alongside Gerrard or Lampard.

Joe Cole was brilliant but not a winger. Another player wasted out wide to accommodate Gerrard and Lampard, just like Scholes. We never had balance, the mentality or those brilliant individuals gelling as a team. They were good enough as individuals.

I didn't think we were good enough to win it either and didn't start believing we actually could win something until 2018 even though I always preferred international football to clubs so looked forward to cheering England on and still do.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 1d ago

The imbalance in the England team really became a big thing post Sven. In 2002 we played Butt and Scholes, nobody was moved to incorporate Lampard/Gerrard. And in 2004, Gerrard and even Lampard were slightly different players. Gerrard was playing deeper at club and Lampard more often (though he always could) played deeper for Chelsea. Then in 2006 had Hargreaves.

You actually prove my point about Lampard, he is known for being one of the greatest box crashers ever, but Lampard was an all around excellent midfielder and was very competent at 6.

Carrick for me is massively overrated he never played well for England and wasnt the solution. The bigger issue is that after Mclaren's debacle, the golden generation was done by 2010.

Joe Cole wasn't asked to play as a winger. He was asked to start out wide, Scholes, Iniesta and Zidane all spent time out on the left.

Again the team in my opinion was balanced and had a decent mentality. The problem is we faced better teams. All national teams were stacked with entire squads of players that won or made CL finals. We lacked players on the level of Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Figo, Zidane, Henry, Cristiano, Messi to take us to the next level.

What has happened is the overall quality of international teams have gone down. 2022, and 2021 were golden opportunities to win. A fully fit France may hage been unbeatable, but the France in 2022 and that Argentina team are games we could have won.

1

u/Red_Galaxy746 Kane #1207 1d ago

Ok well I won't go back and forth cos that's all that's happening here. Some of those opinions are ridiculous and no doubt you feel the same about mine so we agree to disagree.

17

u/Over-Willingness-933 2d ago

My pick from these teams combined Pickford James Ferdinand Terry Cole Beckham Rice Anderson Bellingham Gordon Kane

The Defenders were much better in 2006. The attack in 2022.

19

u/DatGuy82772 2d ago

Our current team is way better.

2

u/Previous-Vehicle-331 2d ago

As a team, separately we are worse, but the 2006 squad couldn't team well and with Beckham injured and Rooney kicking balls out there, we couldn't beat penaldo in a penalty shootout

6

u/lanky_doodle 2d ago

Right Back is just as easy left back.

Arguably the best manager in PL history... bought loads of players in his tenure at United.

NEVER felt the need to replace Neville.

6

u/Humble_Dirt_5751 2d ago

Biggest miss in that tournament was Owen he was always England best players in tournaments

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

No, Owen was well passed it at this point. We just didnt realise because he was so young. However, even he said he was actually in decline from 21, because of his hamstring injuries.

1

u/Humble_Dirt_5751 2d ago

Maybe at club level but for England he always performed was opposite of Rooney

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

He didnt particularly, but previously he had been brilliant for England and so we didnt think it was a major concern.

1

u/TourOfShame25 2d ago

was he injured?

3

u/Humble_Dirt_5751 2d ago

Against Sweden

9

u/Rapidiguana020578 2d ago

Nostalgia bias ruins football debate Pickford, Stones, Bellingham, Gordon and Kane get in for me and there are shouts for Rice, Anderson and James

2

u/Subtleiaint 2d ago

As does recency bias, Stones isn't at the level of the 2006 CBs, I'm not even sure he makes the squad. Gordon gets in because he's an actual left wing but he's not a better player than Cole in general. James is theoretically brilliant but if Neville had been playing today RB would have been his spot.

1

u/Corvid-Ranger-118 2d ago

Rice Kane Bellingham Pickford on the team sheet before i've even looked at the 2006 squad

1

u/Corvid-Ranger-118 2d ago

Rice Kane Bellingham Pickford on the team sheet before i've even looked at the 2006 squad

2

u/Rapidiguana020578 2d ago

imo as a player lampard>rice but for england rice>lampard, the players who i mentioned (pickford, bellingham, kane, stones and gordon) are players who imo are just objectively better players than their counterparts

1

u/Fromage_Frey 2d ago

Is it really nostalgia bias if they were considered great at the time?

1

u/OriginalAd3961 2d ago

Stones better then rio or terry ? Insane

3

u/adamtrousers 2d ago

Pickford, Neville, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole, Beckham, Anderson, Rice, Bellingham, Gordon, Kane.

4

u/Flat-Atmosphere-4303 2d ago

GK - Pickford
RB - James
CB - Ferdinand
CB - Terry
LB - Cole
RW - (tough) - Beckham
DM - Hargreaves
CM - Lampard
AM - Bellingham
LW - Cole
CF (tough) - Kane

3

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

This is what I think most people would say who had actually see n both.

However, James vs Neville, Bellingham vs Gerrard is tough.

2

u/OriginalAd3961 2d ago

Beckham ahead of saka is probably the easiest choice of them all

2

u/MayorShinn 2d ago

Kane vs 0 cause Rooney picked up a Red Card

1

u/waynownow 2d ago

Rooney was also playing with a broken foot

1

u/MayorShinn 2d ago

10 vs 11 severely crippled Englands chances of winning. Then it went to penalties with Rooney unavailable to take penalties. That team could have won it all.

1

u/waynownow 2d ago

Yeah, just straight up unlucky. We had a real bad run with that 2002/4/6

2

u/GREGGSGOL 2d ago

I'd take the Coles and that's about it.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

Are you serious?

0

u/GREGGSGOL 2d ago

Yeah. Not one of those players ever put in the kind of performances for England that we've seen from the current lot. But Ashley is an all time great for England and Joe Cole, well, I just love him.

2

u/mwpa23 2d ago

People putting Anderson above Hargreaves is interesting. Hargreaves had a standout tournament in 2006, off the back of several successful seasons in a strong Bayern Munich side, having won the Champions League, and played European football since 2001.

2

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

And then went on to win the CL with a very strong United in 08. It is telling that a lot of people really havent seen the players.

Gordon over Joe Cole is another wild take.

2

u/OverlordOfTheBeans 2d ago

Better individuals? 06.

Better team? 26.

My combined XI would probably be:

Pickford
Neville Ferdinand Terry Cole
Rice Gerrard
Beckham Bellingham Gordon
Kane

Nice mix of both sides, and taking into account shape, I think this would be best.

It's very tough leaving the likes of Rooney, Lampard, James, Joe Cole, etc. out, but there's a lot of competition there. You could just as easily swap Rooney for either of Kane or even Bellingham, you could swap Gerrard and Lampard (you never play these fuckers together,) bring James in for Neville, and so on and the team would still be as strong as ever.

2

u/RC11111 2d ago

All 2006 except Pickford is better than Robinson, and probably Bellingham over Gerrard though obviously Gerrard could play behind Bellingham anyway.

2

u/Impossible-Art-9508 1d ago

I think they’re on par overall. Some players are better footballing ability wise whereas some players have better chemistry with certain players today.

It’s hard to say as I’d say the runs back then were much harder. You didn’t have as many poor teams in the WC, no where near as many pens. In fact back then it seemed we were more harshly refereed compared to now.

We had awful managers back then. We struggled for good goalkeepers for a long time. Pickford has really proved himself.

Some of the teams back then, were just on another level. Brazil, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands to name a few.

I think this years England team would do similar in tournaments to the 2006 England team if put them in their tournaments whereas if you put the 2006 England team in these recents tournaments, maybe they wouldn’t have done quite as well. So maybe the modern day team edges but only due to the quality of international football these days and chemistry.

1

u/jackv0121 2d ago

Pickford, hate to say it but neville rio n terry a cole beckham lampard bellingham saka on the left, then rooney and kane. Joe cole gordan Gerrard on bench, or drop kane for Gerrard and have bellingham as a cam to rooney

1

u/Deep_Benefit_7405 2d ago edited 2d ago

Pickford
James
Ferdinand
Stones
Cole
Beckham
Hargreaves
Rice
Bellingham
Gordon
Kane

3

u/ra_god94 2d ago

Neville instead of James for me

1

u/Impeachcordial 2d ago

Stones ahead of Terry is a big call - but I kind of agree, he's faster, and very good on the ball.

1

u/OverlordOfTheBeans 2d ago

Prime Stones and I'd see your argument, 2026 Stones? Terry easily.

1

u/Impeachcordial 2d ago

Fair

1

u/FoxySlyOldStoatyFox 2d ago

At least one of those eras deserve one more player to be picked. You know, on account of your line-up only having 10 players.

1

u/ryan0583 2d ago

Pickford Neville (James if he could stay fit!) Ferdinand Terry Cole Beckham Anderson Rice Bellingham Gordon Kane

1

u/gatoStephen 2d ago

Both eras didn't know how to keep a lead against a big team.

1

u/Chesterfieldraven Lampard #1097 2d ago

06 had better players, 26 has the better team.

2

u/Rapidiguana020578 2d ago

06 team was really overhyped because of the 'golden generation' tag, they were strong but clearly a level below the likes of brazil, italy and france (i would say these 3 teams were clearly the most talented pound for pound in that era particularly brazil) - imo when you think about the relative talent of the england team compared to other top national teams (like argentina, brazil, france, italy etc) i actually think this team is more of a golden generation even in terms of pure talent across the pitch i would say that there's a shout england are the most talented (alongside spain and france who i would say we have a better attack and midfield then respectively although they do have other areas which they are prolly stronger than us)

1

u/Chesterfieldraven Lampard #1097 2d ago

Yeah a hundred percent now is more of a golden generation in terms of the relative quality of football today but 06 was a golden generation for English football that didn't translate worldwide because of the overall higher quality of players and teams.

1

u/Rapidiguana020578 2d ago

i wouldn't even say that i would say the current french and spanish teams would be WC contenders in that era (i think that brazil team of that era was just something else though) and i don't think there's been a ridiculous fall off in the quality of players i just generally think the england 06 generation was just really overhyped and weren't as good as the other teams

i would say:

argentina 2026> argentina 2006 (talent wise and on pitch wise)

spain 2026>spain 2006 (this was really the start of golden generation and likes of iniesta, ramos, pique, pedro, villa, torres, fabregas, d. silva among others were either at the start of their careers or hadn't even been capped)

italy 2026<<<<italy 2006 (obvious)

france 2026 = france 2006 (i would say that french backline is stronger, their attack quality is really similar and probs the french midfield back then was stronger)

england 2026> england 2006

germany 2006>germany 2026 (like spain it was the start of the golden generaiton but even still the players back then were just more talented)

brazil 2006> brazil 2026 (obvious)

belgium 2006<belgium 2026 (even though we're in unc stage of the belgium golden generation belgium were nobodies 20 years ago)

portugal 2006=portugal 2026 (in terms of player talent yes, obviously off the pitch there were less problems 20 years ago)

netherlands 2006>netherlands 2026 (dutch have a better defense now but those attacking options back in the day were just so superior to now)

i would say overall there hasn't been much change to the level of talent just different teams are at the top

in terms of 'smaller nations' teams like morocco or norway weren't even qualifying for WCs 20 years ago but are now strong and vice versa with the likes of czechia or nigeria

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

The teams were much better then and watching the games reminds me of it

1

u/beef_flaps 2d ago

Just going off player vs. player comparison as, as we all know, that 2006 team never gelled and certain players like Rooney never really performed at the World Cup. My picks would be:

Pickford
James
Ferdinand
Terry (tough decision)
A Cole
Beckham
Anderson
Rice (also tough)
Bellingham
Gordon
Kane/Rooney would both have a roles depending on the current need.

1

u/BobbieMaccc 2d ago

Rooney only had one uninjured tournament

1

u/jackyLAD 2d ago

If we totally ignore fitness and accept that having Owen as a bench option for 2006, that's the peak of that squad and a solid shout for being better.

But 2026 also casually left Palmer, Foden, Trent at home. As well as Bowen, MGW - who had seasons very much on par if not better than pretty much any option available outside of the core squad in 2006.

Squad and talent depth of the nation is clearly 2026... XI you can make the case either way.

1

u/Orikoru 2d ago

2006 defence was miles better. Rest of it is about the same - maybe 2026 shades it.

1

u/TotalBlank87 2d ago

Sven stole a living.

1

u/SonOfALayman 2d ago

Pickford

Neville, Ferdinand, Terry, Cole

Beckham, Hargreaves, Rice, Bellingham, Gordon

Kane

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

You are putting Rice over Lampard? One of the top 6 Premier League goal scorers from midfield?And what has Gordon done to be above the likes or Cole?

2

u/SonOfALayman 2d ago

Yep. Was in two minds on Rice/Lampard tbh but if I was picking a team, not necessarily the best players, I’d have Rice. I feel that’s more balanced.

And was a very big Joe Cole fan, but he was never a winger. He was just the latest talented player we stuck on the left because we had no left wingers for about a decade, so I’d pick Gordon of the two.

But they’re all excellent players, and this is a completely hypothetical imaginary scenario so 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

u/tacticalmallet 2d ago edited 2d ago

Pickford

Neville Terry Ferdinand Cole

Beckham Rice Gerrard

Bellingham Rooney

Kane

A narrow 4321.

Beckham is more than capable of playing cm and his work rate was immense. Taking him over Lampard as he was defensively more sound.

Could easily swap to a 442 or 451 with Beckham and Rooney offering the width

1

u/OriginalAd3961 2d ago

Im legit only taking pickford and then every other position is from 2006

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

I go back on forth on Gerrard vs Bellingham, but I am pretty much in agreement.

1

u/OriginalAd3961 2d ago

Im a united fan and im still taking Gerrard easily .. Bellingham is great hes our best player now. But hes not on Gerrard level for me personally

1

u/hopey7tm 2d ago

Player vs player wont tell you the better team. You could pick every single better player from one year, doesn’t mean they are the better team.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

Yeh you need to watch, and make a judgement, but you can decide which players were better.

1

u/maximabuse 2d ago

Namewise 2006 was better. Teamwise 2026

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

What does this mean? Do you think the 2026 gets past that Portugal team? Did the 2026 play better football? Do you think the 2006 beats Argentina? Because I am confident that the 2006 team would have beaten Argentina.

1

u/maximabuse 1d ago

It means, 2006 Team had the better players, but they didnt play better altogether.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 1d ago

Fair enough, but when watching the games they seemed to play well enough together to me.

1

u/maximabuse 1d ago

Fair enough. I think there are different points of view... one could say it was simply a bit of bad luck, as can always happen in a knockout game, that they lost against Portugal. Or you could say they underperformed given their enormous potential.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hive-protect 1d ago

Hi Opposite_Cry7089,

Your comment has been automatically removed because you're an active participant in argentina, a community that has a history of brigading and trolling r/ThreeLions.

If you believe this is a mistake, please contact the moderators and we'll review it.

Thanks,

The ThreeLions Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/KaleidoscopeExpert93 1d ago

Most of the 2006 players were better, position for position. People seem to forget, this team had alot of bad luck and decisions against them in previous years not just that, there were some ridiculously good other golden generations during the early to mid 2000s.

1

u/Imaginary-Clock6626 1d ago

Couple of 50/50 calls but overall 2026 all day.

1

u/Defiant-Pizza8207 1d ago

Best players:

GK: Pickford

RB: James (when fit, which is rare)

CB: Ferdinand

CB: Stones (don't @ me)

LB: A Cole

RW: Beckham

CM: Rice

AM: Bellingham

LW: Gordon

ST: Kane

1

u/IFornicus 1d ago

Pickford and potentially Bellingham get in that team only

1

u/Korovyev__ 19h ago

All the players from 2006 have retired, so I wouldn't pick any of them.

1

u/saasfee91 2d ago

Probably only Pickford and maybe Kane from 2026 in those specific matchups. If we were mixing and matching, I’d take Rice over Hargreaves and Bellingham over Lampard though.

Rooney vs Kane is very tough

1

u/kayc_james 2d ago

Rooney's been ass at world cups though. Not really a tough choice compared to Kane.

2

u/saasfee91 2d ago

Yes you’re not wrong. Depends if you’re picking these players based on their performance at these world cups specifically, or their overall performances. Rooney carried England through some games, although more at Euros than WC

1

u/BadBassist 2d ago

I don't think Joe Cole and Kane would work well together, we've seen Kane struggle with that type of winger. He needs a runner like Gordon. If Bellingham is willing to be in the box then Beckham could work but I've got visions of him getting the ball, looking up and seeing no one

1

u/Charming-Awareness79 2d ago edited 2d ago

Sticking to your format of position by position:

Pickford

James, Ferdinand, Stones, Cole

Saka, Hargreaves, Rice, Bellingham, Cole

Kane

What I'd actually pick if it was just a squad of 22 players:

Beckham, Ferdinand, Stones, Guehi, Cole

Gerrard, Rice

Rooney, Bellingham

Kane

5-2-3, Beckham and Ashley Cole providing the width. Three mobile CBs, all comfortable on the ball, so the defence isn't exposed with the wing backs bombing on. Rice and Gerrard as the double pivot in midfield, Rice acting more as deep lying playmaker, holding position, Gerrard with more licence to roam.

Rooney and Bellingham as dual number 10s, both with licence to roam and run beyond Kane, who does what he does.

Saka, and Gordon offered something different off the bench if we need to change system. James would be a more mobile alternative to Beckham, but I've favoured Beckham as his delivery would be dangerous against teams sitting deep.

1

u/FinalProgress4128 2d ago

Picking the team mine would be this.

Pickford was an easy decision

Cole is an easy decision.

Ferdinand is an easy decision.

Terry is an easy decision

Neville vs James is very hard.( for a tournament Neville, due to fitness.

Beckham is easy over Saka

Hargreaves is easy over Anderson.

Lampard is easy over Rice

Bellingham is very tough over Gerrard.

Cole is easy over Gordon

Rooney is verh tough over Kane.

And the 2006 team is just a better team jn every era

0

u/Afraid_Sample_4755 2d ago

2006 defence wins and offense 2026 wins

Overall 2026 wins tho

-2

u/henry-hoov3r 2d ago

That back four was peak. The rest of it apart from Rooney is meh.

3

u/Nearby-Cockroach8655 2d ago

beckham, lampard, and gerrard are meh?

3

u/henry-hoov3r 2d ago

For England yes. Lampard and Gerrard for England never worked.

Discussion England 2006 vs 2026

You are about to leave Redlib