Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    kets - help clear your nose
    Posts
    3,172

    Default England really are [--word removed--]

    So we got beat by Portugal on penalties which means footie wise we are, give or take a bit, on a par with them. However they went on to get beat by France and then in the runners up game by Germany making us worse than those 2. France are going to get comprehensively stuffed by Italy tonight and Italy have already beaten Germany who we know are better than England on account of beating Portugal who beat us making Italy better than us also. Likewise Germany could only manage a draw with the Argies so proving the Argies to be our betters too which only really leaves the Ukrainians who lost to Italy 3:0 probably making them equally [--word removed--] with us!

    Should we just gracefully decline Euro 2008?
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Broken Brexit Britain
    Posts
    55,759

    Default Re: England really are [--word removed--]

    To be fair, I think the World Cup was a fair reflection of England's status in world football ie. just about acraping into the top 10 but without a realistic chance of winning a major tournament and on a par with those other perennial under achievers such as Spain
    But there's always hope. All the semi finalists proved that an ordinary/over the hill bunch of players can be motivated to perform beyond their normal level by a good manager or other circumstances. Trouble is that McClaren is probably not the manager to do that for England

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    S. Yorkshire / Devon
    Posts
    2,716

    Default Re: England really are [--word removed--]

    Our place in the last 8 reflects closely our world ranking.

    You fail to recognise that a sprinkling of luck in the knock out stage can swing a match completely.

    Football wise we always looked far more likely to score than Portugal. Our attacks were plentiful and generally had good finishes, but they have a great goalie. They had nothing that could be described as a finish. My ONLY criticism of Sven in his entire period in charge was not substituting for a win in extra time against Portugal. Penalties was always going to be a problem against the Portuguese goal keeper, we could and should have beaten them in free play.

    Your prediction for the final shows how much you know about footie!

    Euro 2008? I think Sven and Steve have got together the makings of a good young squad. Bring it on!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Broken Brexit Britain
    Posts
    55,759

    Default Re: England really are [--word removed--]

    Blimey you dont want much for £25m? Your only criticism of Sven being his substitution tactics against Portugal?
    What about the idiocy of bringing Walcott despite never having seen him play and despite bringing only 4 strikers and despite 2 of those 4 strikers being injured. I would say that this is one of the most monumental England cock-ups of all time and we were beaten before we started as a result of this. What about Sven's decision to go from 4-4-2 to 4-1-4-1 in the middle of the tournament leaving poor old half fit Rooney up front on his own without having tried the system out in any friendly. For sure this contributed to Rooney's petulant sending off. What about the decision to take all those WAG's along for the ride. Only England did this
    Then on a wider scale, what about his blind faith in Beckham and his inability to get Gerrard and Lampard working together. What about all the tinkering during friendlies and losing the oppurtunity to blend a team. What about England's blatant lack of fitness compared to other European teams (even France's old timers ran longer and harder)
    Then what about his dalliances with Chelsea, Man U, fake sheiks, FA secretaries and assorted celeb totty
    £25m for that? You're having a laugh

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    S. Yorkshire / Devon
    Posts
    2,716

    Default Re: England really are [--word removed--]

    Walcott was a quantity unknown to the opposition, an impact player, and THAT was his time. Sven should have used him then, that is my criticism.

    Rooneys fitness and the formation of play wasn't such an issue that we failed to get through to the last 8, and wasn't an issue in the 1/4 final either. France got within a gnats wotsit of the ultimate goal using Henry in exactly that way. Anyway, lone striker is a myth, there are 9 other potential 'strikers' who are tasked with supporting him in some way or other.

    After all the tinkering on the practice ground, what then? Assume all is well and try it for real in a competition, or test it in a real - although freindly - game?

    You assume that Gerard and Lampard have nothing to do with how they play together. Once the whistle blows, there isn't a deal that Sven can do except substitute one or the other. I'll assume that they had shown all the signs that they would work well.

    As for finess, they seemed OK to me, and Beckham was covering back to front with his usual productivity.

    I don't give a hoot about the £25m, and I'm not interested in his dalliances, that's just to sell the red tops, which I don't read.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Broken Brexit Britain
    Posts
    55,759

    Default Re: England really are [--word removed--]

    Trouble was that Walcott was an unknown quantity to the manager as well as the opposition! Sorry but it was a really bum decision to take him as part of a 4 man strike force. England could have been playing a WC semi final with Walcott as the main striker. Does'nt bear thinking about
    As for Rooney playing as a lone striker, there are several reasons why it was'nt a good idea. First, he was'nt match fit (how could he be after only 1 full match?) and the role demands extreme fitness. Second, the midfield may have been tasked to get up alongside him but the midfield were incapable of delivering the ball to him except by lumping long balls forward as a result of which they could'nt get to him quick enough for any lay off. Third its not a role that suits Rooney or one that he likes. He much prefers to play behind another target striker like Crouch running onto balls rather than having to receive them with his back to goal. Basically Rooney was misused to make up for the lack of a 4th or 5th striker
    If England were going to go to a 4-1-4-1 formation, it should have been tried in at least 5 or 6 friendly games because its not a system that many teams in the UK use although most other WC teams used something similar, not just foisted on the players mid tournament. Even then Sven was not sure who was his best holding midfielder, discarding poor Carrick after only 1 game before giving the role to Hargreaves who excelled at it because thats his club position
    Fitness wise, England faded badly in the 2nd half of the early matches although by the Portugal game they lasted the whole game + extra time to be fair but other sides looked fitter from the beginning
    Sorry but I do give a hoot about £5m a year being wasted on a shyster. No other manager at the WC was getting anywhere near that. This was money which was far better being spent on grassroots football than on Lear jets

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to