Stolen by the Ref

[ptholt]

Im sorry but there is only 1 reason why we didnt win. The ref. You can say england played badly all you want but we scored more goals than the lucky cheating portugal. but thanks to that ###### arogent, fruity bearded,swiss donkey of a ref, we didn't win!

Personally i don't think england did enough to win, you can't go 1-0 up then sit so far back in defence that your back four is on top of your keeper and when you do manage to get the ball you hoof it up the park to two forwards who have not much aerial pressence, it was patehetic to watch and tactically niave.

Last night England looked tired, almost punch drunk midway through the second half and were lucky to only conceed one imo. The headed goal james could do nothing about, his defence was on top of him he had like 3 yards to react so all it needed was a touch and unless it went straight at him he was stuffed.

The performances over the whole tournament have been very poor and blaming it on a refereeing decision thats arguably correct just doesnt cut it, if we had carried on at least trying to play football and not just hoofing it up the pitch we might have stood a better chance.

in the whole tournament we have had quite a few issues -

1. Becks is either not fit OR injured, i've never seen him play so many average games for england, he's normally the first to get stuck in and fight and crosses great from the touchline, dont recall seeing him do either.

2. leadership on the pitch, there was none... saw very little sign of someone instructing or talking on the pitch

3. leadership in the back four, most teams have some sort of leader at the back to lead the line etc we had nothing and were frankly a mess to spend so long stuck in our own box.

4. Our established england players had by there standards a fairly average tournament (owen, scholes)

I hate to say it but we seem to have taken a step backwards from the last world cup, at least then we came out and took it to them high tempo to get a goal or two, euro 2004 we didnt really take it to anyway except the swiss....

Edited June 25, 2004 by ptholt

[pg]

I disagree.

England was hot and cold in the last world cup.

Brilliant against Denmark and Argentina, ordinary against Sweden and Brazil.

The 2nd half against Brazil they just rolled over and gave up... as if they didn't actually have the belief that they could beat Brazil.

Last night England never gave up. Yes their tactics may not have been brilliant, but with a midfield of Beckham/Lampard/Neville/Hargreaves you don't have many options.

But I think you were playing as well as in WC'02, and when you factor in the performances of Cole/Lampard/Rooney/Gerrard and perhaps King.. all youngish players...I think you are looking marginally better than two years ago.

All you need is a keeper for the next generation, and someone to play on the left-side of midfield and you'll be challenging in '06.

[Roaming Rover]

Urs Meier

[greggyk]

Im sorry but there is only 1 reason why we didnt win. The ref. You can say england played badly all you want but we scored more goals than the lucky cheating portugal. but thanks to that ###### arogent, fruity bearded,swiss donkey of a ref, we didn't win!

Personally i don't think england did enough to win, you can't go 1-0 up then sit so far back in defence that your back four is on top of your keeper and when you do manage to get the ball you hoof it up the park to two forwards who have not much aerial pressence, it was patehetic to watch and tactically niave.

Last night England looked tired, almost punch drunk midway through the second half and were lucky to only conceed one imo. The headed goal james could do nothing about, his defence was on top of him he had like 3 yards to react so all it needed was a touch and unless it went straight at him he was stuffed.

The performances over the whole tournament have been very poor and blaming it on a refereeing decision thats arguably correct just doesnt cut it, if we had carried on at least trying to play football and not just hoofing it up the pitch we might have stood a better chance.

in the whole tournament we have had quite a few issues -

1. Becks is either not fit OR injured, i've never seen him play so many average games for england, he's normally the first to get stuck in and fight and crosses great from the touchline, dont recall seeing him do either.

2. leadership on the pitch, there was none... saw very little sign of someone instructing or talking on the pitch

3. leadership in the back four, most teams have some sort of leader at the back to lead the line etc we had nothing and were frankly a mess to spend so long stuck in our own box.

4. Our established england players had by there standards a fairly average tournament (owen, scholes)

I hate to say it but we seem to have taken a step backwards from the last world cup, at least then we came out and took it to them high tempo to get a goal or two, euro 2004 we didnt really take it to anyway except the swiss....

But thats my point. We didnt play well, but we scored 2 perfectly good goals so we should be through!!

Edited June 25, 2004 by greggyk

[Tom Pringle]

Well done my ###### arse, we got cheated out of it

If we had had our goal allowed, it's Portugal that would have been cheated.

You cannot be so negative throughout a full 90 minutes and expect to go through.

[greggyk]

Another thing to show how bad that ref was, did anyone see when ashley cole made that clearance of the line, the ref signalled a goal then changed his mind.

###### ######!!

[thenodrog]

All you need is a keeper for the next generation, and someone to play on the left-side of midfield and you'll be challenging in '06.

Plus a striker (Defoe maybe).

And someone to play right wing!

We all knew at heart that we had deficiencies on the left and up front but who would have dreamed that the captains international career appears to be well and truly over?* Beckham must be dopped now and forced to prove that he is worth his previously automatic place. He's had a shocking tournament culminating not only in the pen miss but in another awful performance and atrocious closing down that led directly to Portugals first goal. I know that English left sided midfield players are like hens teeth but right now off the top of my head I cannot for the life of me think of a replacement for Beckham either.

Looks like 2006 (if we get there) might just see a return to tactics based on Ramsey's Wingless Wonders from 1966.

* But Becks has still done well........ (dont forget he was the 2nd best player in the world 2 years ago) for someone who cannot tackle, head, dribble, sprint, and kick the ball out of his shadow with his left foot. Good job he played for MU and married a pop star eh?

Edited June 25, 2004 by thenodrog

[Guest Kamy100]

Gutted with what happen last night.

However looking back at the game we defended to deep. It is not possible to play that way for 60 odd minutes and get away with it. The midfield just did not function as a proper unit and in the end that cost us the game. Portugal are not a very good side, what little pressure that we did exert on them resulted in chances being created but the fact that we just sat back played into their hands. Still the England Fans seemed to create a superb atmosphere, no trouble and at least the team showed fighting spirit to comeback during extra time.

[thenodrog]

Well done my ###### arse, we got cheated out of it

If we had had our goal allowed, it's Portugal that would have been cheated.

You cannot be so negative throughout a full 90 minutes and expect to go through.

Dont be daft Tom. And dont be bitter either. We would be in the semis because we scored more goals than them. Period.

They attacked for 80 mins simply cos they had to. When the scores were level or when we were behind we were not negative but were going full tilt at them.

[CAPT KAYOS]

We lost simply because Portugal where a better side after the first 20mins.

For a team that played so negatively I am surprised we got as far as extra time (Silver Goal???????? pah!!!!)

Looking at it overall, we have not exactly played well all through the tournament - exception being the France game until the last 5mins and the Croatia game once Rooney had imposed himself, and then still we looked average until Lampards goal.

Good luck to Portugal, and after the scenes I saw out there on Sunday and the good crack I hope they now go on to win it.

We where simply not good enough with bad tactics and players to boot.

Edited June 25, 2004 by CAPT KAYOS

[Tom Pringle]

Well done my ###### arse, we got cheated out of it

If we had had our goal allowed, it's Portugal that would have been cheated.

You cannot be so negative throughout a full 90 minutes and expect to go through.

Dont be daft Tom. And dont be bitter either. We would be in the semis because we scored more goals than them. Period.

They attacked for 80 mins simply cos they had to. When the scores were level or when we were behind we were not negative but were going full tilt at them.

I'm not bitter at all. In fact you'll notice in other Euro 2004 threads i've been laughed at for saying we won't win the tournament and for saying we wouldn't get out of our group.

In my eyes it's very odd that you've said we went 'full tilt' at them. I personally don't class hoofing the ball up to two - 5 foot 6 inch - strikers as 'going full tilt'

The negative teams have finally left the competition, which in my eyes (As a neutral now apart from the Czech Republic) is a good thing.

No more sitting on 1-0 leads in the hope you can scrape through. Bye Germany, bye bye Italy and unfortunately after starting so bright and attacking, bye England.

The ref didn't cost us the game, losing Rooney and the tactics Sven used did.

[Tom Pringle]

We where simply not good enough with bad tactics and players to boot.

Someone else speaking sense.

Some of us on here need to take those st. georges cross glasses off and face up to the truth.

[bob fleming]

13 pages of angst which unfortunately I can't really be bothered reading, sorry. Here are my thoughts: -

1. Ref's a clown.

2. Ref's got a ridiculous beard.

3. Beckham didn't look fit.

4. We missed Rooney.

5. Too many long balls to small people.

6. Why take Scholes off and replace with Hargreaves (who was poor).

7. England played badly.

8. Despite playing badly we had this won - but for the aforementioned clown of a ref with a blonde goatee beard.

9. Campbell was immense.

10. Ref was an absolute (please don't use that word) who had a (please don't use that word) on his chin.

11. We probably got what we deserved.

12. Beckham really isn't very good at taking penalties.

13. Sven didn't do much of a Souness impression by way of "motivating" his players.

14. I'd better take that St Georges flag down from our upstairs window tonight.

15. The next idiot who says "Well let's hope Tim wins Wimbledon" is gonna get chinned.

16. Portugal aren't good enough to win it either.

17. 7 weeks to the start of next season.

[broadsword]

I have to say I'm not Sven's biggest fan.

Owen flipping Hargreaves, Emile Flipping Heck Heskey, Paul Stuffing Scholes (why persist with someone who is so out of form?), Keiron Well Named Dyer, no Alan Smith, Dracula James ... argh!

But, nevertheless, we had a perfectly good goal disallowed. All the "they played better" claptrap doesn't negate the fact that the referee prevented us from reaching teh semi's because he disallowed the goal.

[greggyk]

Why not tell the swiss roll your opinions!

Refs website

e-mail link is at the bottom of the page

[Manchester Blue]

We where simply not good enough with bad tactics and players to boot.

Someone else speaking sense.

Some of us on here need to take those st. georges cross glasses off and face up to the truth.

So when Jimk2 et al talk so pessimistic about Rovers you don't ever respond. We haven't been overly negative at all. We have simply done what any team would do and that is try and hold on to a lead.

It makes me laugh some of the comments. Obviously when two teams are evenly matched when one takes the lead they will sit back. What else would you do? Course we sat too deep but it was the quarter final for gods sake players get nervous and panic.

Yes we played too many long balls but with the strikers we had on it was an easy option and when you are leading 1-0 in a quarter final you take the easy option.

If you honestly think we deserve to be going home then fair enough but we have played some of the best football at times and had as much right to be there as a few of the others. When we needed to we could play and score something the Italians, Germans and a few others clearly couldn't but you stick to your guns Tom.

[Blackpool_Rover]

Lets just forget about it and watch tennis. COME ON TIM!

[Shaddy]

I can't believe the topic of this thread has been changed to "Stolen by the Ref"... full whinge mode on now

My first impression was that it was a fair goal. The replay suggested that it was a 50/50 decision for obstruction of the keeper (absolutely no foul). But someone said it earlier, this is not the way to lose gratiously.

[Tom Pringle]

So when Jimk2 et al talk so pessimistic about Rovers you don't ever respond.  We haven't been overly negative at all.  We have simply done what any team would do and that is try and hold on to a lead.

re jim and rovers: thats different, i've shown blind optimism for rovers and always will

Don't get me wrong, we should hold onto a lead. At around the 50th minute maybe at a push? But 3 minutes in, we score and then never looked likely to score again (Only on set pieces). Our build up play was terrible, giving the ball away to often and just overall not looknig like to score.

It makes me laugh some of the comments.  Obviously when two teams are evenly matched when one takes the lead they will sit back.  What else would you do?  Course we sat too deep but it was the quarter final for gods sake players get nervous and panic.

I didn't think that Portugal looked that nervous when they were 2-1 up. Correct me if i'm wrong but they stuck to their guns and attacked. Admitedly they got beat on a set play, but we weren't going to score in open play which is where we should have scored if they were actually 'exposed' by being attacking minded.

Yes we played too many long balls but with the strikers we had on it was an easy option and when you are leading 1-0 in a quarter final you take the easy option. 

As soon as Rooney went off we starting hitting long balls. Why? We were still playing fairly decent football at times until he went off.

If you honestly think we deserve to be going home then fair enough but we have played some of the best football at times and had as much right to be there as a few of the others.  When we needed to we could play and score something the Italians, Germans and a few others clearly couldn't but you stick to your guns Tom.

Damn right, we have played some cracking football. Against france we did (Apart from the last 3 minutes) as we kept going at them even though we only had a 1-0 lead. Switzerland was one of the most convincing wins of the tournament (Along with Sweden 5-0 and Holland against Latvia). Croatia we played very well (Apart from our set plays) but against Portugal we looked totally different. We didn't look the attacking force we had looked in the other games. Maybe this was due to Rooney going off, but we'll never know.

And finally, I will stick to my guns, as many people who know me know i haven't exactly got a proper footballing brain when it comes to giving opinions. But i fell very strongly about this one and believe i'm right.

[Hughesy]

One word: CHEATED

I honestly feel like we have been mugged, as Ian wright said after the game he's a homer

[greggyk]

he looked more like a homo with that beard of his

[bob fleming]

Lets just forget about it and watch tennis. COME ON TIM!

Right that's it!!

[Tom Pringle]

Lets just forget about it and watch tennis. COME ON TIM!

Right that's it!!

Superb

[DaveyB]

Ok....so his arms were by his side and he stood still.

That's a foul? Learn the rules then come back, please.

Whose arms were by his side?? Not John Terry's - they were across the keepers shoulders! Add to that the fact that Terry stood between the keeper and Campbell while Sol used Terry as a springboard to get higher and I believe that it was a fair decision.

Put it this way - if it had happened at the other end and the ref had given it, we'd all be on here now saying that the ref had cheated us out of it by giving them a goal which shouldn't have stood.

Another point worth considering is that the incident that led to the free-kick from which the dis-allowed goal was scored was a joke. Ashley Cole came across to block a clearance and his momentum took him over - there wasn't even a hint of conatct from the portugese defender - so again, had the goal been allowed to stand, the portugese would probably have had every justification in feeling cheated.

You can't blame this defeat on the ref. It was down to us not being good enough. Other than Wayne Rooney we had no-one to lift us above the ordinary. Without him we were reduced to being the Bolton Wanderers of International football - sitting deep, hitting long balls and hoping for free-kicks and corners because that's our biggest (only?) real threat.

[RoyRover]

It was hard luck on England, to lose the way they did. The ref was hopeless, although I thought that Campbell's goal was 50/50 and it just went against England,as many things did. However, I thought Portugal played better than England and deserved to go through. There is no doubt that England worked hard, and their defence was outstanding, but being under pressure for nearly the whole match, finally took its toll. As some people have already pointed out, the substitutions played a big part. Big Phil had to go for it and put on attacking options, which were better than Englands. You could see way Sven put on the players he did, Portugal were in control of the midfield and were looking very dangerous, so he was hoping that the likes of Neville and Hargreaves would be able to add more stability to the midfield. If he had brought on the likes Of Dyer or Cole, would it have made a difference? Would England have been even more over run, because these players aren't defensive, or would they have been able to catch Portugal on the break? Again, I thought that Beckham was totally anonomous and I don't understand way he wasn't taken off in any of the matches. I know that he is the captain, who lead by example, but when he isn't leading and is one of Englands poorest players, then you could make a case for his substitution. But then again, you would keep him on for his delivery from set pieces alone. Overall, a great game, with some great goals, Rui Costa's imparticular.