England 0 Portugal 0

[SAS]

Right, ive stopped sulking now

i blame sven for that defeat, we should have played 442, what the feck can rooney do feeding off scraps and long balls, not good

walcott should have NEVER gone, defoe should have been there, why take a striker you aint gonna use, stupid, STUPID.

Owen hargreaves, well done lad, you proved A LOT of people wrong, including me, I'm happy to eat my words.

The ref - didnt give yellows for portugals constant diving - WHY the rules say you have to.

Rooneys red - i thought the ref wasnt going to give him owt, until he pushed ronaldo, although he claims he didnt do it on purpose, it looked that way

Ronaldo - wants shooting the little bugger, gettinga team mate sent off is a disgrace, then winking top his manager tut, SCUM

After 10 men, we played the best we have done during the world cup, shame we couldnt capitalise, but they did brilliant.

Penalties, well its always going to happen isnt it

MY bro got in for 400 euros, here are his pictures from the day;

http://www.freewebs.com/slater_scott/worldcup06england.htm

[Ronin]

Scolari made a similar substitution in both cases (taking the striker off, putting a midfielder) but I guess he was only right in the first one.

In the game against Holland, Portugal was winning and the lack of striker made Portugal play in a 4-5-0. However, when attacking, Portugal could create danger as they have some fast players and Holland defenders missed a opposition reference to follow. While defending, everyone got behind the ball. That is understandable, as Portugal was winning.

Against England, I guess Scolari decided too soon. England were down to 10 men but he should have waited a little longer to make the substitution. If he was to make it then, he should have put another striker (I prefer Nuno Gomes) as Pauleta was playing really bad. So, for a while, Portugal had no reference in the front.

Sven opted, well I think, to put in a striker to make two defenders stay there. I wouldn't take off Joe Cole in that ocasion, I would probably take off Lampard or Gerrard.

No manager would put two strikers while down to 10 men, unless they are losing. English players were great after Rooney was sent off but they were playing a close game while trying to counterattack and a free kick or corner to Crouch to score/play with his team mates. With 2 strikers, it would have to be a more open game where the missing man might make a diference.

If I remember, when Trinidad went down to 10 men against Sweden, their manager put on an extra striker giving them more attacking options rather than just sitting back and holding on for a point.

[Eddie]

If I remember, when Trinidad went down to 10 men against Sweden, their manager put on an extra striker giving them more attacking options rather than just sitting back and holding on for a point.

Yes, but that was Trinidad and Tobago going for broke in the group stages, not the same as being 0-0 in a tight quarter final. Sven handled it well, the team played well after the sending off and had the chance to win the game both in regular time and the penalty shoot-out.

[Oklahoma]

For what I've checked, Trinidad and Tobago's substitution were midfielder for midfielder and striker for striker.

But anyway, what did they have to lose?

Nothing!

If Sven risked to put a second striker (Walcott) and lost the game due to it, you would all be complaining that he shouldn't have put a second striker.

[Drakefyre]

I don't see how you can say that France haven't been good in the elimination stages. They ran Brazil ragged and had a huge shot advantage. Zidane was masterful and Ribery was impressive too. The rest of the midfield and defense did excellently to shut down Brazil's midfielders and forwards/forward.

[American]

For what I've checked, Trinidad and Tobago's substitution were midfielder for midfielder and striker for striker.

But anyway, what did they have to lose?

Nothing!

If Sven risked to put a second striker (Walcott) and lost the game due to it, you would all be complaining that he shouldn't have put a second striker.

They definitely went from one up top to 2 up top and created more chances down a man than they had 11-11.

[Eddie]

I don't see how you can say that France haven't been good in the elimination stages. They ran Brazil ragged and had a huge shot advantage. Zidane was masterful and Ribery was impressive too. The rest of the midfield and defense did excellently to shut down Brazil's midfielders and forwards/forward.

They've been good, but nothing amazing. Brazil didn't show up and Spain were pretty average in an average match that should have finished 2-1. I hope they do better, I always support France as long as they aren't playing England, but I haven't been that impressed by them. The general standard in this world cup has once again been pretty ordinary.

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

Because the decision gave him no choice but to play 4-5-1, leading to a toothless attack up until the sending off. Arguably it had every bearing on the Portugal game.

Agreed American.

And if you take it one stage further and say: "What would have happened if we had won the penalty shoot-out and met France in the semi-final?" - then with Rooney suspended and Owen out injured, we would have been facing the French with Crouch on his own up front and the only other striker option being the untried and untested Walcott on the bench.

If Crouch had picked up an injury against France we would have been left with a 17-year-old kid with no Premiership experience trying to hold the ball up against some of the world's best defenders.

Paul Jewell: Eriksson's decision-making was at fault

we don't seem to be as fit as other teams.

Peter Crouch: "We were too tired to take penalties properly."

The heat and being down to ten men aren't good enough excuses. Clearly these players, some of them earning over a hundred grand a week with their clubs, are not fit enough. Seb Coe was right.

[Flopsy]

I agree with the last paragraph ASEF. Also we had the better chances to win it - anyone remember Lampards fluffed volley and Lennons back pass to their keeper? We had the chances to win, we didnt take them

[Eddie]

Please someone, explain why no mention of the penalty appeal? I have yet to see it again other than on the big screen where I didn't have a great view.

[Hasta]

If you mean when Lennon went through Eddie then Nuno Valente played the ball. Brilliant tackle under the circumstances.

[Eddie]

If you mean when Lennon went through Eddie then Nuno Valente played the ball. Brilliant tackle under the circumstances.

Didn't he go through the man first?

[Hasta]

For what I've checked, Trinidad and Tobago's substitution were midfielder for midfielder and striker for striker.

But anyway, what did they have to lose?

Nothing!

If Sven risked to put a second striker (Walcott) and lost the game due to it, you would all be complaining that he shouldn't have put a second striker.

Sven should never, after nearly 6 years in charge, have ended up changing right at the end to 3-5-1 purely because he didnt take another striker except one he was obviously unprepared to use. When you think about it that really sums the turkey of a manager up. To insist that he knows what he's doing all the way through 6 whole years and then at the last minutes have to change his entire formation. Why. Because he didnt bother to take any strrikers apart from ones he didnt trust enough to use.

Most people with a football brain know that putting you eleven best players on the pitch isnt enough. Some have to be sacrificed for the good of the team. Getting the balance right is far more important. I know that may mean with injuries we end up playing players who arent first choice or who fall short of the level we are playing at. But if the system is right, and the other players are good enough, it gives a better chance of winning than changing everything around just to get your buddies on the pitch.

Had Sven gambled on Bent, Beattie or even Ashton in the 4th striker role people would have just looked at them as fodder in the squad. Yet at least they would have had the experience to have come on and done a role alongside Rooney. Of course now Sven had realised after god knows how many years that Gerrard and Lampard couldnt play together in the centre this would have meant dropping goldenbollocks on the right wing so it was a no-brainer from the start.

Foreign managers are fine if they are more or less the best man for the job. Sven was nowhere near that. Thank god this tool is finally gone.

[Hasta]

Sir Alf Ramsey said that you play the best player that you have FOR EACH POSITION. So regardless of whether Lampard and Gerrard are "world class", they're both attacking midfielders who play in EXACTLY the same position. Therefore you decide which one's best and put them in. You don't make up formations to play them all. For god's sake we tried that at Rovers with our plethora of midfielders at one time, and that looked unbalanced too.

Pick a formation, and pick players to play the formation. Play them in as close a position as possible to the one they play for their club, and bob's you uncle.

See, and I don't get paid £4m a year.

Firstly I wouldnt actually play my suggestion. I'd drop Lampard. I was merely pointing out there were far better ways to accomidate Gerrard and Lampard. Lennon obviously looks now like he should be first choice but had Lennon not arrived on the scene in the last few months Gerrard on the right was a logical choice. Doing this would have been a way in which they could have both played in the side. Gerrard plays there at times for Liverpool, can do what Beckham does and has more chance of getting past the full back.

Lennon is a right winger. Therefore, you put him, if he's the best one you've got- on the right wing. Putting him anywhere else is as sensible as putting him in goal.

I muted Lennon on the left only as a possibility.

Gerrard and Joe Cole have obviously proved innefective as left midfielders. If Lennon proved (which he hasnt) that he could play effectively on the left would it not be better to have an effective player on either wing than a very effective player on the right and nothing on the left.

[philipl]

I think we are missing the point. There were no other English-born strikers good enough to take.

[ABBEY]

DEFOE ,BEATTIE,JOHNSON,ASHTON ETC...have all m ore reasons to be selected ahead of wallcot at this stage in theos career...simple.

macca was in paper yesterday saying he pleaded with sven not to take him

[joey_big_nose]

I'm with Phillipl on this, I don't think Defoe or Beattie or Bent would have been any more effective up front than Lampard or J Cole.

The problem in my eyes is that he did no get any midfielder to push up and support Crouch. It clearly can be done- see liverpool in the FA cup final or the CL final.

Nonethless we do need a serious strike partner to Rooney to emerge next season, not a one season flash in the pan like Beattie or Bent. As I have said ad nauseum Ashton is the man for me.

Big choice for McClaren to come to set the tone of his management. If I was him I would be sorely tempted to make some big waves for the fist game- drop Lampard and Beckham, start Lennon, give Downing a full half, give Ashton a full half, give Carrick a full half. Most improtantly set the boys out to play wide expansive attacking football.

Very few believe McClaren can do the job, it's up to him to prove himself. I would guess if things don't work out the press could force the FA to pull the trigger within six months. I'm sure Steve must know that.

[FourLaneBlue]

I think we are missing the point. There were no other English-born strikers good enough to take.

Sorry Philip but I think the main point is why take somebody if you are not prepared to play him? It doesn't really matter that he took Walcott if he was prepared to give him a chance. However to take him and not to be prepared to play him at all is just bonkers.

[Eddie]

I'm sure he planned on playing him, but the opportunity never really presented itself.

[neekoy]

I actually agree with you Eddie, you play the players as needed not just because they accompanied you on the trip

Boa Morte for Portugal, Huth for Germany, half the aussie squad

If you wanted to give him a shot however

[rover6]

I'm sure he planned on playing him, but the opportunity never really presented itself.

I was fooled in over-estimating Sven and thinking that he had a plan to use Walcott's searing pace to England's advantage.

But now I believe that Sven had some half-formed idea of Walcott coming off the bench to trouble tired defenders but saw him in training once the squad was picked and realised he wasn't ready or didn't have the confidence to perform on the big stage.

However, surely this is a moot point. If Bent, Ashton or Michael Ricketts had been taken - would they have played in the knock-out stages? No. Crouch was always the next choice behind Owen and Rooney.

We may as well argue about why Jermaine Jenas was taken to the World Cup.

[Eddie]

I think he probably did have a plan, but it was never right to use Walcott and there was no reason to stick him on for the sake of it just so that he could shut a few people up. I'm sure he expected to be able to put him on during the group stages, but tough games against Paraguay and T&T meant that it was never right while the Owen injury meant he couldn't come on against Sweden. Ecuador was another tough game and it was never right to bring him on. Maybe he would have come on against Portugal late in the game had we had 11 players on the pitch but the sending off meant we needed someone to hold the ball up with pace around him, with Lennon already on it made sense for the replacement to be Crouch. If someone can show me a moment in the game when they would have stuck Walcott on then that is fine, but having a 23 man squad doesn't mean that you have to use all 23 and it also doesn't mean that simply because he didn't make it on that he isn't good enough.

[DP]

Nonethless we do need a serious strike partner to Rooney to emerge next season, not a one season flash in the pan like Beattie or Bent. As I have said ad nauseum Ashton is the man for me.

How can you describe Bent as a flash in the pan when he's only had one season in the Prem? (a successful one at that) He was the top English born goalscorer in the Prem playing for a very mediocre side. Not only that, he was consistent over the entire season and scored goals from start to finish. He also played a lot of the season playing as a LONE striker. He was/is the most logical backup striker we have. Sure, he's not world class but neither are the Italian strikers, and look where they are.

Still, it was only one of the problems we had. The midfield is another story

[BuckyRover]

How can you describe Bent as a flash in the pan when he's only had one season in the Prem? (a successful one at that) He was the top English born goalscorer in the Prem playing for a very mediocre side. Not only that, he was consistent over the entire season and scored goals from start to finish. He also played a lot of the season playing as a LONE striker. He was/is the most logical backup striker we have. Sure, he's not world class but neither are the Italian strikers, and look where they are.

Still, it was only one of the problems we had. The midfield is another story

Are you talking about Bent or Michael Ricketts of Bolton fame?

[joey_big_nose]

Bent does not strike me as an international quality striker, nor do i think he will become one- much like Andy Cole ten years ago.

Ashton however does seem to have the requisite all round ability. That was my point.