England v Slovakia Matchday Thread

[BRISTOL86]

1 hour ago, pillred said:

I'll take winning over a joy to watch though.

Completely agree, but the point is still worrying. They weren't good enough with end product to win the game but when teams like Slovakia are considerably more comfortable on the ball than our £40-£50m 'stars' something is very very wrong. 

It's the reason I can't get excited watching England any more, as we all know frat despite a whitewash in qualifying, as soon as we come up against quality opposition, we will be shown up for the frauds we are. 

[SedRA]

18 minutes ago, Super said:

Does it really matter who it was meant for?

Not saying it's right but there's a difference between showing disrespect to an official and teammates being a bit cheeky to each other. 

Also, lots of people just think Alli/Southgate were blagging and it was aimed at the ref. Just saying it backs up their comments.

 

[Ian M]

I'm about to hate myself for what I am gonna post as it feels like I'm entering social justice warrior territory but irrespective of who he is showing his finger to, I think Dele needs a ban for it.

Like it or not, he's a role model for kids (particularly as he's our best player) and doing that with all the cameras focussed on him is just stupid. If nothing happens to him, kids will think it's ok. 

I believe it was directed at Kyle Walker not the ref so I'd be happy for a one match absence rather than 3 if it had been at the ref but I'd prefer it if the FA took the lead here and explained to the player, it isn't acceptable and that he won't be selected for the next game as a message to anyone watching that thinks about doing the same.

Now I need to go comfort eat.

[BRISTOL86]

24 minutes ago, Ian M said:

I'm about to hate myself for what I am gonna post as it feels like I'm entering social justice warrior territory but irrespective of who he is showing his finger to, I think Dele needs a ban for it.

Like it or not, he's a role model for kids (particularly as he's our best player) and doing that with all the cameras focussed on him is just stupid. If nothing happens to him, kids will think it's ok. 

I believe it was directed at Kyle Walker not the ref so I'd be happy for a one match absence rather than 3 if it had been at the ref but I'd prefer it if the FA took the lead here and explained to the player, it isn't acceptable and that he won't be selected for the next game as a message to anyone watching that thinks about doing the same.

Now I need to go comfort eat.

Agreed. Not acceptable. 

[1bristolcity]

1 hour ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Completely agree, but the point is still worrying. They weren't good enough with end product to win the game but when teams like Slovakia are considerably more comfortable on the ball than our £40-£50m 'stars' something is very very wrong. 

It's the reason I can't get excited watching England any more, as we all know frat despite a whitewash in qualifying, as soon as we come up against quality opposition, we will be shown up for the frauds we are. 

Did you not see signs in the second half that we looked a well drilled side?...I know I really do know all about the previous years, more than you, and I did see us win the WC, and that team was about all effort, you know playing through teams, balls in the box,  and shooting on site. That is the England way, like it or lump it, we cannot play like the Brazil's Spain, or even some of the rest , not in our DNA.  We are bandaged split heads, none of this poncy stuff..Ooohhh Sir he showed me his finger...(cry) stuff. 

[BRISTOL86]

12 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

Did you not see signs in the second half that we looked a well drilled side?...I know I really do know all about the previous years, more than you, and I did see us win the WC, and that team was about all effort, you know playing through teams, balls in the box,  and shooting on site. That is the England way, like it or lump it, we cannot play like the Brazil's Spain, or even some of the rest , not in our DNA.  We are bandaged split heads, none of this poncy stuff..Ooohhh Sir he showed me his finger...(cry) stuff. 

With all due respect that's nonsense. 

'Don't' and 'Can't' are two different things. 

All starts with coaching and ours is stuck in the past while other countries keep up. 

[JamesBCFC]

 

My prediction on how the actual tournament will go was made into a song 7 years ago.

Sadly, it ends up being the case for most tournaments we enter.

[Portland Bill]

3 hours ago, North London Red said:

Fair enough re Chelsea and Man City, less so for Liverpool (Henderson, Lallana, Milner, Sturridge, Clyne, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Gomez, Alexander-Arnold, Solanke) and Man United (Jones, Smalling, Rashford, Lingard, Shaw, Carrick, Young).

In the last round of Premier league games, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea had a grand total of 4 English players ( in total ) starting their games!. The ( arguably) four biggest English clubs.

Add in, none of them have an English manager, then add that all four clubs are foreign owned.

What does that tell you about English football. 

[Portland Bill]

3 hours ago, 1bristolcity said:

Ahh right and play the easy on the eye passing game with no end result, like them?

It's not just them though, the teams that win the tournament's play that style as well, though those teams have more quality than Slovakia, who lets face it are minnows in the grand scheme.

[Red Exile]

3 hours ago, 1bristolcity said:

Ahh right and play the easy on the eye passing game with no end result, like them?

No...not what I meant. I appreciate that you've seen signs that we looked well-drilled in the second half...I watched Spain v Italy earlier in the week, and by comparison we look like a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears hit and hope headless chickens. Or at least that's how I see it. Under what I'd consider a wet-behind-the-ears and hopeless manager I don't see much scope for improvement. Sadly. 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, 1bristolcity said:

Did you not see signs in the second half that we looked a well drilled side?...I know I really do know all about the previous years, more than you, and I did see us win the WC, and that team was about all effort, you know playing through teams, balls in the box,  and shooting on site. That is the England way, like it or lump it, we cannot play like the Brazil's Spain, or even some of the rest , not in our DNA.  We are bandaged split heads, none of this poncy stuff..Ooohhh Sir he showed me his finger...(cry) stuff. 

Can you explain why English players dna is different? On a physiological level it is ridiculous notion. There is no skill gene.

England has produced players like Beckham. Hoddle, Gascoigne Scholes  ... All possessing differing exceptional skill levels. Different dna?

English teams at their best in tournaments have played to feet and at their very best in club football Forest and Liverpool again played to feet.

 

[North London Red]

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

In the last round of Premier league games, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea had a grand total of 4 English players ( in total ) starting their games!. The ( arguably) four biggest English clubs.

Add in, none of them have an English manager, then add that all four clubs are foreign owned.

What does that tell you about English football. 

Point taken, and clearly it's desirable to have as many English players as possible playing regularly for clubs at the top end of the league (although incidentally, the team who have taken more points over the last 2 seasons than any other - Tottenham - have a reasonable English contingent), but Portugal showed in the Euros last year that you don't need a team full of players playing for the top clubs in order to be successful. Arguably more important in tournament football is being well organised, not conceding goals, having a team that is greater than the sum of its parts, and building momentum as the tournament progresses. Our organisation in the last few tournaments has been a shambles, we concede two goals too many times (Sweden, Italy, Uruguay, Iceland), our team is less than the sum of its parts, and we never build momentum.

Also interesting to note that in 2008, England didn't qualify for the European championships but in the Champions League final that year, there were 10 English players who started the match, so having players in the top club sides is no guarantee of success either (especially for England, it seems!).  

 

[Cowshed]

16 minutes ago, North London Red said:

Point taken, and clearly it's desirable to have as many English players as possible playing regularly for clubs at the top end of the league (although incidentally, the team who have taken more points over the last 2 seasons than any other - Tottenham - have a reasonable English contingent), but Portugal showed in the Euros last year that you don't need a team full of players playing for the top clubs in order to be successful. Arguably more important in tournament football is being well organised, not conceding goals, having a team that is greater than the sum of its parts, and building momentum as the tournament progresses. Our organisation in the last few tournaments has been a shambles, we concede two goals too many times (Sweden, Italy, Uruguay, Iceland), our team is less than the sum of its parts, and we never build momentum.

Also interesting to note that in 2008, England didn't qualify for the European championships but in the Champions League final that year, there were 10 English players who started the match, so having players in the top club sides is no guarantee of success either (especially for England, it seems!).  

 

And arguably far more important again in tournament football is being well organised, not conceding goals, and having a team that is technically advanced.

Both Germany and Spain have teams where the team is greater than the sums of its parts.

How they get to that level is methodology that sees their top players playing in top sides and German and Spanish players in their league being in the majority.

I would argue that the above methodology has created success, great teams and players and is guaranteeing success in the future. The English absence of a joined up development model will continue to guarantee the failure at the tope level it is associated with.

[Mr Popodopolous]

47 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

And arguably far more important again in tournament football is being well organised, not conceding goals, and having a team that is technically advanced.

Both Germany and Spain have teams where the team is greater than the sums of its parts.

How they get to that level is methodology that sees their top players playing in top sides and German and Spanish players in their league being in the majority.

I would argue that the above methodology has created success, great teams and players and is guaranteeing success in the future. The English absence of a joined up development model will continue to guarantee the failure at the tope level it is associated with.

How do you figure with this bit?

Spain at their pomp had a good chunk of the Barcelona side, players from Sevilla who were a good side in Europe with an excellent academy, and a sprinkling of good players from elsewhere. Additionally, moving to England in the cases of Fabregas and Torres and probably Silva also at Man City. I would suggest, they had a huge range of talent across many clubs. Germany likewise are overflowing with good players, ranging from seasoned to young. Even the current Spain, which isn't as good as past Spain in terms of depth? Missing from the most recent squad the likes of Javi Martinez, Herrera, Mata, Costa...

I agree with the rest of your post, but greater than sum of parts? Dunno about that...

@North London Red Agree with some of what you say. Portugal was an interesting case- ironically they had a much better side 20, 10 years prior with players spread around higher clubs. Their tournament win seemed as you say to be well organised, yes several players did play in the major few Leagues plus Carvalho and Moutinho both with strong experience. However, Ronaldo aside it's ironic that their most ordinary side since arguably mid 90s was the one to win a major tournament. Ronaldo, some veterans, and several promising young players basically! Oh and very well organised as you say, well coached also.

[Cowshed]

30 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How do you figure with this bit?

Spain at their pomp had a good chunk of the Barcelona side, players from Sevilla who were a good side in Europe with an excellent academy, and a sprinkling of good players from elsewhere. Additionally, moving to England in the cases of Fabregas and Torres and probably Silva also at Man City. I would suggest, they had a huge range of talent across many clubs. Germany likewise are overflowing with good players, ranging from seasoned to young. Even the current Spain, which isn't as good as past Spain in terms of depth? Missing from the most recent squad the likes of Javi Martinez, Herrera, Mata, Costa...

I agree with the rest of your post, but greater than sum of parts? Dunno about that...

@North London Red.

Its a methodology. The whole system works to one goal. Not every player is great but the outcome still can be. Are Spain's defenders as good as Italy's? Often no, but due to the emphasis on team play and possession they do not need to be.

Spain won a tournament without a forward/great centre forward because the systems players could adapt to it.  

Germany and Spain is yes producing lots of good and very good players. Players that offer flexibility to suit a multitude of styles who can adapt to different leagues.   

Germany are relentless. Relentlessly successful or a there about's at tournamments ... And are better than expected even when we should learn to realise they will find a way to progress.

England? Even our golden generation is looked upon as a failure.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Its a methodology. The whole system works to one goal. Not every player is great but the outcome still can be. Are Spain's defenders as good as Italy's? Often no, but due to the emphasis on team play and possession they do not need to be.

Spain won a tournament without a forward/great centre forward because the systems players could adapt to it.  

Germany and Spain is yes producing lots of good and very good players. Players that offer flexibility to suit a multitude of styles who can adapt to different leagues.   

Germany are relentless. Relentlessly successful or a there about's at tournamments ... And are better than expected even when we should learn to realise they will find a way to progress.

England? Even our golden generation is looked upon as a failure.

Agtree, possession and fluency can cover up defensive shortcomings for sure. Working towards a system, a goal is the way forward.

I would broadly agree yeah.That was mainly 2012 but adapt they did- and their best performance came in their 4-0 demolition of Italy who themselves frankly had a good technical side too...but Spain were World Champions, Italy were merely a good side.

Flexibility, across styles and Leagues- superb with them, with us not really so much. For all the PL is talked up I really think some of our players- talking mid 20s, and younger, say 24 and below, could do with going to some foreign Leagues. From a technical POV Spain and even with some sides, Italy. Could have served Wilshere better last summer at AC Milan tbh rather than Bournemouth, excellent coach though Howe is.

Relentlessly successful yeah...but this Germany batch of players is so different, think you've mentioned it on here before their plan post Euro 2000. For a good while they were about grinding- maybe for 20, 25 years,. Anyway grinding it out say between late 70s and 2004. However 2000 was when changes began to be put in place...now they are technical, not as much as Spain arguably but definitely the next level down. Draxler, Reus, Ozil all interchanging would be a joy to watch, throw Goetze in too...They tended to find a way but now they are great. Though they can prosper on the counter attack too- don't mean 10 behind the ball either, but fast pacy, with reasonable passing still- say thinking WC 2010 vs us and Argentina especially spring to mind. They can play both- all comes to flexibility as you say!

As for us? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the 3 successive quarter finals the most consistent period in our history? It underwhelmed in the end but for a few years there seemed to be some promise, I know we won WC and I know we reached semis in 90 and 96 and possibly one other tournament too but in terms of successive tournaments, fairly sure it was the most successful in terms of consistency...of course a poor manager and a tricky group- Euro 08 qualifying- put paid to that.Sven and we would have got there, or a group like we had in 06 WC QF and we would have got there- and you never know maybe in 08 they would have been at peak. I still think Spain would have won 08 but you never know.

 

[Davefevs]

11 hours ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Completely agree, but the point is still worrying. They weren't good enough with end product to win the game but when teams like Slovakia are considerably more comfortable on the ball than our £40-£50m 'stars' something is very very wrong. 

It's the reason I can't get excited watching England any more, as we all know frat despite a whitewash in qualifying, as soon as we come up against quality opposition, we will be shown up for the frauds we are. 

Sorry, everyone else, but I've not read the rest of this thread, but your first para is the one thing I cannot get my head around with England.  It massively frustrates me.

I actually enjoyed Monday's games, first time in ages.  Not because I suddenly think we are gonna take on the world, but that it was actually good to watch and not sit there frustrated.

[kiwicolin]

One of the worst players to play for CITY.

 

Scott McGarvey  

[BRISTOL86]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Sorry, everyone else, but I've not read the rest of this thread, but your first para is the one thing I cannot get my head around with England.  It massively frustrates me.

I actually enjoyed Monday's games, first time in ages.  Not because I suddenly think we are gonna take on the world, but that it was actually good to watch and not sit there frustrated.

Really? All it did for me was reinforce just how incredibly overhyped the products of the 'best league in the world' are (note products rather than those brought in from elsewhere to bump up the quality!) 

It's shameful how far behind we are in this country from a coaching standpoint and not enough people are angry enough about the state of the home game. 

But hey, as long as they get that 39th game sorted and some rich people get richer......

(none of this is aimed at you by the way, it just makes me incredibly angry!)

[Davefevs]

Agree that they are overhyped and shocking that they are technically poor...but I still enjoyed the game. At least we had a bit of a go despite our inadequacies! 

[Phileas Fogg]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree that they are overhyped and shocking that they are technically poor...but I still enjoyed the game. At least we had a bit of a go despite our inadequacies! 

Interesting that you don't rate Kane.. or is it that you don't enjoy watching him? Or a bit of both?

I think he's interesting - not the most technically sublime player but very difficult to argue against his goals record. Reminds me slightly of Abraham in a way, I didn't feel Abraham had a fantastic all round game per se, but had that unteachable knack for scoring goals.

Germany seem to make good use of players like him, Gomez, Klose.. effective strikers who are just great at scoring.

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

6 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Interesting that you don't rate Kane.. or is it that you don't enjoy watching him? Or a bit of both?

I think he's interesting - not the most technically sublime player but very difficult to argue against his goals record. Reminds me slightly of Abraham in a way, I didn't feel Abraham had a fantastic all round game per se, but had that unteachable knack for scoring goals.

Germany seem to make good use of players like him, Gomez, Klose.. effective strikers who are just great at scoring.

 

Agree PF

I rate him and like you find him ' interesting '

When he first came on the scene I didn't really make much of him but his consistent goal scoring made me watch him a bit more closely

His movement and football intelligence , is , for me , both very good , and clever , different to a lot of players

Scores all types of goals and takes his shots as early as any English player I can remember

Understand what DaveFevs says - he doesn't necessarily 'catch the eye' , but as I said , personally I think he's very clever and will score buckets for England in the coming years (Think he'll threaten or break Rooney record)

[Phileas Fogg]

3 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Agree PF

I rate him and like you find him ' interesting '

When he first came on the scene I didn't really make much of him but his consistent goal scoring made me watch him a bit more closely

His movement and football intelligence , is , for me , both very good , and clever , different to a lot of players

Scores all types of goals and takes his shots as early as any English player I can remember

Understand what DaveFevs says - he doesn't necessarily 'catch the eye' , but as I said , personally I think he's very clever and will score buckets for England in the coming years (Think he'll threaten or break Rooney record)

Agree. I think we've been a bit spoilt for aesthetically pleasing styles of forward for England.. Shearer's power and potency, Owen's pace and finishing, Rooney's individual brilliance..

Kane perhaps isn't as fun to watch as those three but I do like him. Can't complain when he's so good at scoring. Just don't let him take corners!

[BobBobSuperBob]

11 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agree. I think we've been a bit spoilt for aesthetically pleasing styles of forward for England.. Shearer's power and potency, Owen's pace and finishing, Rooney's individual brilliance..

Kane perhaps isn't as fun to watch as those three but I do like him. Can't complain when he's so good at scoring. Just don't let him take corners!

I genuinely think the way the lad speaks ,(Is it a lisp or similar he has) and the fact that he doesn't necessarily look or move fluidly like a Thierry Henry , arnt so pleasing on the eye / ear , and don't match the perception of the perfect footballer ( Sub consciously) which is daft really

Hes one of those players that you need to watch carefully IMO to appreciate him, especially his movement around goal

He also doesn't have one overwhelming standout strength - blistering pace , awesome skills, etc etc but is a player who would get 7/8 in just about any category , and my belief that his movement and getting his shots off early mean he will always get plenty of goals

I also think his hold up / team play is very decent and his telepathic link ups with Dele Ali are a sheer joy to watch at times

The goal against Malta summed it up for me - Cool head and excellent composure and skill by Ali, quite brilliant movement and awareness by Kane , and no pundits said much about his finish , but I've seen dozens of forwards miss those 

He knew exactly what he was doing before he got he ball , one touch , and bang - surgical 

[Super]

Didn't want to start a new thread but how did Spain and Italy end up in the same group? One of them not a top seed?

[Robbored]

27 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agree. I think we've been a bit spoilt for aesthetically pleasing styles of forward for England.. Shearer's power and potency, Owen's pace and finishing, Rooney's individual brilliance..

Kane perhaps isn't as fun to watch as those three but I do like him. Can't complain when he's so good at scoring. Just don't let him take corners!

Tbh I've never thought to compare Kane to previous England strikers. Mr Dull like most England managers select the in form strikers and Kane has certainly been banging 'em in for Spurs.

Your analysis is a very interesting one though. Reminds me of just how powerful Shearer was.

An excellent post PF.

[BobBobSuperBob]

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Tbh I've never thought to compare Kane to previous England strikers. Mr Dull like most England managers select the in form strikers and Kane has certainly been banging 'em in for Spurs.

Your analysis is a very interesting one though. Reminds me of just how powerful Shearer was.

An excellent post PF.

And 'in form' for over 3 years RR

hes scored over 20 Premier League goals a season in the last 3 seasons (Don't bother trying to find if there's another who's done the same !)

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agree. I think we've been a bit spoilt for aesthetically pleasing styles of forward for England.. Shearer's power and potency, Owen's pace and finishing, Rooney's individual brilliance..

Kane perhaps isn't as fun to watch as those three but I do like him. Can't complain when he's so good at scoring. Just don't let him take corners!

Got me thinking PF - how he matches up with , who most would regard as our best goal scorers / forwards over the last few decades

Out of interest Looked at Lineker, Owen , Shearer and Rooney in comparison (Stats wise)

Firstly IMHO , Kane is more of a team player , and his hold up play is better than Lineker and Owen , Rooney played different roles at times so probably contributed more around the pitch and Shearer took some beating as a target man / pinnacle with the ability to hold the ball up

Also worth bearing in mind , all except Kane , and Rooney , played with a regular partner (At International Level) who helped them / share the load greatly  

There are some other immeasurable factors too ( Could be argued all had a better International side / teammates than Kane

Their goals returns at Club and International Level are as follows

 

Lineker

Club 238 goals in 460 games   %51.3  goal return

International 48/80    % 60

 

Owen

Club  163/362   %45

Int     40/89  %44.9

 

Shearer 

Club  283/559  %50.6

Int    30/63         %47.6

 

Rooney

Club  200/463    %43.9

Int     53/119       %44.5

 

Kane

Club  78/116    %67.2

Int    10/21 (Not sure the two over the last week included)  %47.6

 

I don't get over carried away on stats but in goalscoring comparison I think it has some value and I think shows Kane is , as it stands , right up there with forwards widely hailed by pundits and supporters

 

[BRISTOL86]

Kane reminds me a lot of Lewandowski

[Davefevs]

@Phileas Fogg @BobBobSuperBob @BRISTOL86 Good comments. 

Interesting the comments / comparisons to German (Gernan-based) scorers. 

For me taking Klose as an example, he played in a predominantly top rate international side where he didn't really need to get involved in the build up. Just focus on getting in the box for the tap ins / headers.  I don't think anyone would say he was a fantastic overall footballer - but he was lethal with his chances. That of course deserves accolades. 

To give Kane some credit, if he played for Germany, he could probably do the same. But for England he gets involved in the play (and has to) and I don't think he performs that greatly in that aspect. A lot of moves break down with him in possession (outside of box) areas. Of course things don't come off in the box. That's fine. I accept that. 

Having said that I thought on Monday he actually did well in this area, and funnily enough didn't get any goals. Malta he didn't do well outside the box but got 2. 

Perhaps I've been spoiled in the past. Certainly not saying he's not good enough, just some aspects of his game could be improved. 

[stephenkibby.]

6 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Interesting that you don't rate Kane.. or is it that you don't enjoy watching him? Or a bit of both?

I think he's interesting - not the most technically sublime player but very difficult to argue against his goals record. Reminds me slightly of Abraham in a way, I didn't feel Abraham had a fantastic all round game per se, but had that unteachable knack for scoring goals.

Germany seem to make good use of players like him, Gomez, Klose.. effective strikers who are just great at scoring.

 

Yeah, the Germans did seem make good use of Gerd Muller!!!

Talk about a Penalty Box player.