World Cup 2018

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, AAK said:

Makes me laugh, bet all the posters who are 'positive' about England, were part of the vast majority that jumped on the 'worst team weve ever had' bandwagon. Now we have got to a quarter their all over it, but yet people who have criticised even when the team has won are all fools. One extreme to the other with this country, lowest of the lowest confidence straight upto the we are going to win it, within 3 games won (one scraped, one againsta primary school team and one on a pennys) its disaster to euphoria. And thats allowed, but realists are negative and have spoken out of term and are idiots. 

I didn't really expect much before the tournament started, I expected that if the tournament went to form we'd probably reach the quarter finals and get knocked out by Germany. 

The majority of my dissatisfaction against Southgate was down to in my view an unbelievably stupid decision to risk losing momentum and also play a much harder last 16 tie against Colombia than Japan. If he did the same thing again tomorrow I'd still say it was unbelievably stupid. For all his rhetoric that he was merely resting players, would he have done the same if for the sake of argument we needed to top the group to play Saudi Arabia in the last 16 and finish 2nd to play Brazil? I very much doubt it.

However, that's water under the bridge now, we survived by the skin of our teeth and whilst I agree with you that Panama apart we haven't impressed in the slightest so far, we are only 2 winnable looking games and a difficult looking Brazil/Belgium/France/Uruguay Final away from lifting the trophy.

I Don't rate Southgate but regardless of my views on him he will deserve the utmost credit if he becomes only the 2nd English manager apart from Sir Alf to do the business. We just need 3 results now, it doesn't matter if we are terrible in all of the remaining games but win them by a combination of penalties or an own goal or a fluke off someone's arse in the 90th minute.

The history books in 50 years won't care we needed 94 mins to beat Tunisia, lost to Belgium's reserves or needed penalties to scrape past Colombia etc.

 

[Silas]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

 

I Don't rate Southgate but regardless of my views on him he will deserve the utmost credit if he becomes only the 2nd English manager apart from Sir Alf to do the business.

 

What credit will he get if we get to a semi and get knocked out?

Genuine question. I'm intrigued. 

Cos you've spent this whole thread talking about how success can only be measured by lifting the trophy. 

Which, of course, I understand is the ultimate aim of any team entering a tournament. 

But the negative nellies keep talking about "realism ".

Well let's get  real, we've won it once only. And got to how many semis? Can't be bothered looking it up. But it can't be many.

So, will Southgate and the team get credit from the NN's if they achieve what very few have over the last century?

Answers on a postcard.  

 

[K-Hod]

One criticism I will have of Southgate is we aren’t bereft of creativity. Fair enough there were question marks over the fitness of Lallana and Wilshere and he obviously doesn’t fancy Shelvey, but I feel any of those three would have made a difference.

Sterling has the most productive season of his life for City, then gets played out of position when it comes to The World Cup. Obviously he hasn’t been up to it regardless of where he’s been playing, but we’ve got actual strikers on the bench who would probably do better in that position, you know, their own. What was I saying in another thread about square pegs in round holes? 

Wingers on the wing etc.

Edited July 4, 2018 by K-Hod

[jim mk2]

Until this year, Germany have been experts at playing poorly in the early rounds but always scraping through and then getting better as the tournament progresses. It's one reason why they've been widely admired (and reviled) for so long and been so successful. I'd be quite happy if England scabbed it (so to speak) all the way to the final. Brazil have always done well too despite having some mediocre teams by their standards. Knowing how to play tournament football is as important as having a talented squad of players, and if Southgate has found the way when many others have failed all kudos to him. 

[RevidgeBlue]

24 minutes ago, Silas said:

What credit will he get if we get to a semi and get knocked out?

Genuine question. I'm intrigued. 

Cos you've spent this whole thread talking about how success can only be measured by lifting the trophy. 

Which, of course, I understand is the ultimate aim of any team entering a tournament. 

But the negative nellies keep talking about "realism ".

Well let's get  real, we've won it once only. And got to how many semis? Can't be bothered looking it up. But it can't be many.

So, will Southgate and the team get credit from the NN's if they achieve what very few have over the last century?

Answers on a postcard.  

 

I guess you'd very much class me as a NN so for what It's worth here's my two pennorth.

Theoretically these lads despite being relatively young are all top top players so I can't believe anyone didn't expect us to get out of a group containing Tunisia and Panama.

If we go out against Sweden I'd describe it as an ok tournament but nothing particularly special bearing in mind Sweden are well below us in the world rankings and tbh if we were playing them in a friendly most people would expect us to win comfortably.

Losing semi finalists: good effort, a lot better than expected pre tournament probably, but to play devil's advocate, how much of that would be down to luck of the draw and Germany and Spain unexpectedly going out? We would still also be going out to a team below us in the world rankings.

Losing finalist: Extremely good effort, I'm 54 and first World Cup Final in my lifetime I remember so a very rare event. Likely to be a playing a real top side so likely to be no disgrace in losing.

Winners: Arise Sir Gareth CBE MBE OBE and all round good egg. I say with a perfectly straight face I always knew he was a good 'un and the Country goes into absolute meltdown.

[RevidgeBlue]

46 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Until this year, Germany have been experts at playing poorly in the early rounds but always scraping through and then getting better as the tournament progresses. It's one reason why they've been widely admired (and reviled) for so long and been so successful. I'd be quite happy if England scabbed it (so to speak) all the way to the final. Brazil have always done well too despite having some mediocre teams by their standards. Knowing how to play tournament football is as important as having a talented squad of players, and if Southgate has found the way when many others have failed all kudos to him. 

I'd say consistently "scabbing" games in normal time was more a sign we had mastered tournament football than unexpectedly coming back from 2-3 down on penalties with 4 to go but good point.

[K-Hod]

I think reaching the semi finals would represent a good tournament at this stage. Ignoring our poor record against Sweden for the moment, they are a side that we should be beating really. 

I think given how I’ve felt after the last few World Cups and the last Euros in particular, it’s good to feel slightly more positive about the national team for a change in all honesty.

[jim mk2]

14 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

If we go out against Sweden I'd describe it as an ok tournament but nothing particularly special bearing in mind Sweden are well below us in the world rankings and tbh if we were playing them in a friendly most people would expect us to win comfortably.

.

 Have you seen our record against Sweden? It's mediocre at best and we find them very difficult to play against for some reason, as Southgate has noted ("a dog of side" he called them).  

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 hours ago, roverandout said:

Never said there wasnt..france, brazil and belgium are all better..we can more than match uruguay and croatia..just happy to be still in with a chance..we have better players than some would like to give credit for..we havent played to our potential yet

If we play either of Uruguay or Croatia they would be going into the game as slight favourites especially in Uruguay's case if Cavani is fit again. They are like Colombia only better.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[joey_big_nose]

If you look at the squads on paper we really should beat Sweden. Colombia are a considerably better team in my book. Colombia have one superstar (luckily out injured against us) and four or five high quality Champions League players. I genuinely thought Colombia could send us out even if we played to our best ability if they turned up.

On the other hand Sweden have zero super stars and zero regular Champions League players. Obviously theyve had a great tournament and are very astute tactically but in the cold light of day we really should beat them or something has gone wrong.

No disrespect to Sweden meant at all, they've had some cracking players in the past, and we'll have to play at our best to not get beaten like Germany, Switzerland Mexico before. But if we do play at our best we should win because of the gap in quality.

But again same was true against Iceland two years ago, so let's not count our chickens...

[47er]

10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Sorry, it was a joke. It seems to be a hanging offence to say anything vaguely critical of England on here at the moment. You should know that we're going to bring the trophy home under the sage auspices of soon to be canonized Sir Gareth of Southgate.

I knew it was a joke!!! I just wondered what's wrong with Croatia? I see what you mean now!  

[47er]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You're right, football is a wonderful game and it is odd how we often see the game completely differently.

For me Kane had to try and drop deeper last night to try and pick up the ball because no-one behind him was doing their job and he did a sterling (pun intended) job of holding the ball up and drawing the odd foul with no support around him to take the pressure off us a bit.

I see You're also bending over backwards to justify Sterling's contribution to the team. Whenever I'm watching him I'm thinking "He wasted that" or "gave that away" or 'no end product there" and one of the commentators on TV goes "Great piece of play by Sterling there!" 

For me if he was a woman you'd describe him as extremely high maintenance. He's always doing silly things off the pitch which draws the media spotlight onto him. No -one would give two hoots about that if he were our outstanding performer but he then backs that up with being arguably our worst performer whereas none of the other players seem to get themselves in situations off the pitch and most of them manage to perform far better than him in an England shirt on it.

I feel It's got to the stage whereby Southgate feels he has to pick him to show the media and the world at large the player retains his public support which in my view is wrong.

Not sure what the answer is as Rashford didn't exactly impress against Belgium when given his chance but I still feel we have to try something different.

I would go with Rashford or Vardy. Sterling is not contributing.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, 47er said:

I would go with Rashford or Vardy. Sterling is not contributing.

I'd have liked to have seen Kane and Vardy together at some point but it seems Vardy is struggling with an injury now.

[DaveyB]

4 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You're right, football is a wonderful game and it is odd how we often see the game completely differently.

For me Kane had to try and drop deeper last night to try and pick up the ball because no-one behind him was doing their job and he did a sterling (pun intended) job of holding the ball up and drawing the odd foul with no support around him to take the pressure off us a bit.

I see You're also bending over backwards to justify Sterling's contribution to the team. Whenever I'm watching him I'm thinking "He wasted that" or "gave that away" or 'no end product there" and one of the commentators on TV goes "Great piece of play by Sterling there!" 

For me if he was a woman you'd describe him as extremely high maintenance. He's always doing silly things off the pitch which draws the media spotlight onto him. No -one would give two hoots about that if he were our outstanding performer but he then backs that up with being arguably our worst performer whereas none of the other players seem to get themselves in situations off the pitch and most of them manage to perform far better than him in an England shirt on it.

I feel It's got to the stage whereby Southgate feels he has to pick him to show the media and the world at large the player retains his public support which in my view is wrong.

Not sure what the answer is as Rashford didn't exactly impress against Belgium when given his chance but I still feel we have to try something different.

Not bending over backwards to justify Sterling’s contribution, just suggesting that we’re not playing to his strengths which I think explains, a bit at least, his poor performances up to now. As others have pointed out, watching him at City all season you  can see he has the talent, so there must be a reason that he’s not doing it for England beyond just ‘he’s cr@p’

 

And as for Kane dropping deep - yes maybe we were struggling to get the ball up to him, and maybe other players weren’t doing their job, but imo that’s no reason for him to come deep and try to do their jobs. He’s a striker. Not only that he’s our only striker. So, if he’s in the midfield, no matter how well he’s doing there, it means we’re effectively playing with no striker - which probably explains why we didn’t manage to have a shot on target all night and have actually only managed 1 goal from open play all tournament - and that was a goal out of nothing, a moment of individual brilliance rather than a well-worked chance created by flowing, attacking football.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’ve done ok so far, and Southgate has injected some general positivity into the national team for the first time in a long time, but tactically I don’t really understand what he’s trying to do. 

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, DaveyB said:

Not bending over backwards to justify Sterling’s contribution, just suggesting that we’re not playing to his strengths which I think explains, a bit at least, his poor performances up to now. As others have pointed out, watching him at City all season you  can see he has the talent, so there must be a reason that he’s not doing it for England beyond just ‘he’s cr@p’

 

And as for Kane dropping deep - yes maybe we were struggling to get the ball up to him, and maybe other players weren’t doing their job, but imo that’s no reason for him to come deep and try to do their jobs. He’s a striker. Not only that he’s our only striker. So, if he’s in the midfield, no matter how well he’s doing there, it means we’re effectively playing with no striker - which probably explains why we didn’t manage to have a shot on target all night and have actually only managed 1 goal from open play all tournament - and that was a goal out of nothing, a moment of individual brilliance rather than a well-worked chance created by flowing, attacking football.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’ve done ok so far, and Southgate has injected some general positivity into the national team for the first time in a long time, but tactically I don’t really understand what he’s trying to do. 

Thanks for the reply. I'm not a fan of Sterling but it seems obvious to me if you must play him you need to play him as an out and out winger aswide as possible on one of the flanks.

I think sometimes managers on millions of pounds a year think they can be so much cleverer than everyone else and shoehorn players into unnatural positions to accomodate fancy formations and ignore the blindingly obvious which the man in the street can see as plain as day. And that's not specific to Southgate by any means.

[roversfan99]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks for the reply. I'm not a fan of Sterling but it seems obvious to me if you must play him you need to play him as an out and out winger aswide as possible on one of the flanks.

I think sometimes managers on millions of pounds a year think they can be so much cleverer than everyone else and shoehorn players into unnatural positions to accomodate fancy formations and ignore the blindingly obvious which the man in the street can see as plain as day. And that's not specific to Southgate by any means.

Sterling often spends games at City inside drifting in, hes hardly the type to constantly run outside and whip crosses in. Hes a very technical and intelligent player.

He was no worse than the likes of Alli and Lingard last night yet he attracts lots of attention. He isnt quite the same player for England and it might seem a lazy thing to imply but id suggest most of that is mental. Hes never been the most popular England player, he was a bit of a scapegoat in the team at Euro 2016 that was all poor, he gets loads of attention in the papers even though he hasnt done anything wrong so maybe its weighing him down. Id love him to score more than anyone else just to hopefully give him that relief to hopefully relax more.

[RevidgeBlue]

Wouldn't have thought he starts as part of a two up front for City though does he?

As for the rest of it, if he is feeling pressure for any reason, unlucky, he's a professional sportsman so he has to find a a way of dealing with it. People can't make excuses for him forever, is it nearly 40 games now?

I would also have to differ when you say he does nothing wrong off the pitch. No - one  forced him to do laughing gas or tattoo an AK 47 on his leg. He brings the media attention on himself imo.

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Wouldn't have thought he starts as part of a two up front for City though does he?

As for the rest of it, if he is feeling pressure for any reason, unlucky, he's a professional sportsman so he has to find a a way of dealing with it. People can't make excuses for him forever, is it nearly 40 games now?

I would also have to differ when you say he does nothing wrong off the pitch. No - one  forced him to do laughing gas or tattoo an AK 47 on his leg. He brings the media attention on himself imo.

No but by that same token many of the team dont play in the same formation as they do for their clubs.

The tattoo is to do with his dad I believe being shot when he was little. It has a meaning to him and to be quite frank has nothing to do with anyone else and is no reason to give him any stick. The laughing gas wasnt a recent thing was it?

Did he play any worse than Alli and Lingard? I dont believe so but theres no strong continued argument about their inclusion.

Hes an incredibly talented player whose posted some really impressive numbers in terms of goals and assists for City this year. I dont understand the constant hounding he gets. Take your point about him being a professional but to be fair I do think he needs a goal badly to boost his confidence.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Anybody else find themselves shaking their heads over the latest fashion of wearing your football socks rolled right up past your knees ? I just don't get that one at all. Then again I'd hate to have had to play with those beach length shorts flapping around my knees. When I was a kid we used to laugh at old photos of players like Stanley Mathews, Tommy Lawton etc wearing baggy shorts, now we're wearing them again. Do you see 100 metre runners wearing long flapping shorts ? It makes you wonder if most players have any brains at all.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[joey_big_nose]

7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'd have liked to have seen Kane and Vardy together at some point but it seems Vardy is struggling with an injury now.

Don't agree on this at all. Vardys game is play on the shoulder, so every time he's been on the gap between our midfield and strikers expands hugely which is a major issue as we only have three mids.

I'd put Rashford in ahead of him as he can drop off and link up too.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, joey_big_nose said:

Don't agree on this at all. Vardys game is play on the shoulder, so every time he's been on the gap between our midfield and strikers expands hugely which is a major issue as we only have three mids.

I'd put Rashford in ahead of him as he can drop off and link up too.

Yeah, I don't see Kane and Vardy as a partnership. I believe Welbeck is out there, what about his chances of playing ?

[joey_big_nose]

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Did he play any worse than Alli and Lingard? I dont believe so but theres no strong continued argument about their inclusion.

I think part of it is 1) Sterling's goal stats are terrible for someone playing striker 2) Rashford and Vardy present genuine alternative starters who have vastly better goal scoring record 3) while I personally think Sterling has done much better than he is made out to by many on here he hasn't ever had an excellent game for England. Lingard has. Alli has had quite a few good ones (seem a long time ago now). That gives you something to point to and warms the fans to you.

All that said Southgate has stuck with him to this point and I can't see him being dropped. He's said from the outset that his picked a system and a team to fit that system. And he obviously feels that Sterling is the right man. So he's got at least one more game to prove the doubters wrong.

 

[joey_big_nose]

6 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Yeah, I don't see Kane and Vardy as a partnership. I believe Welbeck is out there, what about his chances of playing ?

Somewhere around zero I would say. Despite having a really quite good international goal scoring record. Maybe he's England's Klose but we will never find out because he never plays?

Actually thinking about it we might give him a spin in the last 30 if Sweden defend deep as he is okay in the air. I'm just always confused by what type of stirker he actually is.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 minute ago, joey_big_nose said:

Somewhere around zero I would say. Despite having a really quite good international goal scoring record. Maybe he's England's Klose but we will never find out because he never plays?

Actually thinking about it we might give him a spin in the last 30 if Sweden defend deep as he is okay in the air. I'm just always confused by what type of stirker he actually is.

He's a faster Jason Roberts.

[K-Hod]

7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Wouldn't have thought he starts as part of a two up front for City though does he?

As for the rest of it, if he is feeling pressure for any reason, unlucky, he's a professional sportsman so he has to find a a way of dealing with it. People can't make excuses for him forever, is it nearly 40 games now?

I would also have to differ when you say he does nothing wrong off the pitch. No - one  forced him to do laughing gas or tattoo an AK 47 on his leg. He brings the media attention on himself imo.

A lot of this off the pitch stuff is irrelevant and totally unfair tbh.

He shops at Primark/Poundland- gets criticism. (Despite John Terry doing the same and getting favourable reporting). 

Shops at expensive shops- gets criticism.

Buys his Mum a house as a thank you for sacrifices over the years- gets criticism.

The laughing gas thing was definitely a bit daft, but it’s not recent in fairness.

None of these excuse his performances so far for England but people go in way too hard on him IMO when it’s unnecessary.