CiderArmyy Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I thought we played exactly as i thought we would, and made a pretty good fist of it. France disappointed me much more. My worry is what we are like in 'must win' games - do we have a plan B if we go a goal down...kind of how Italy fans must have felt 20 years ago. Saddens me that we look a generation behind most of the teams out there the way we are able to play, but not surprised. This style is our one shot, but its also a one trick pony! Hope we go for a more attacking formation against ukraine and sweden, ok great we got the point we needed against an Ok france team, but we HAVE to be more attacking. Something like a 4 2 3 1, 4 2 2 2 .. don't really want to see a flat 4 4 2 against weaker teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Hope we go for a more attacking formation against ukraine and sweden, ok great we got the point we needed against an Ok france team, but we HAVE to be more attacking. Something like a 4 2 3 1, 4 2 2 2 .. don't really want to see a flat 4 4 2 against weaker teams. No need to change anything. Same performance in the next 2 games as against France will see us through comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderArmyy Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 No need to change anything. Same performance in the next 2 games as against France will see us through comfortably. playing extremely definsively?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldlandReddies Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 playing extremely definsively?? Clearly didnt watch todays game did you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skuuuuuuse Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 It struck me the other night, one of my mates said to us - "out of the entire England squad, who do you think could get in the Dutch, Spanish or Italian sides?" I answered Rooney and Joe Hart. I was given Hart (thought 2 reckon Casillas) and nobody accepted Rooney. Though I reckon those two are the only "world class" (and at a push Gerrard) in the squad. You didn't mention Ashley Cole? He is the only player who consistently performs well for England and would get in all 3 of those sides, one of the best left-backs in the world for quite a few years now. Pretty much our whole defence and Joe Hart would get in the Dutch side, their defence is poor. Ashley Young and Rooney can get in the Italian side if Balotelli can, although I think Di Natale and Cassano are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think we will do better than Euro 2008 ! Unlikely- we were unbeaten through that whole tournament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Hope we go for a more attacking formation against ukraine and sweden, ok great we got the point we needed against an Ok france team, but we HAVE to be more attacking. Something like a 4 2 3 1, 4 2 2 2 .. don't really want to see a flat 4 4 2 against weaker teams. I think we have to be more attack-minded, but I wouldn't change anything for the next match. I don't really see how a 4231 is any more attacking than what we played; it's exactly the same but with the wingers pushed up more. I'd play exactly the same personel in a 433; Mner tucks in, The Ox and Young either side of Welbeck. To be honest, the way we went through the French defence in the opening half hour, i.e. Before we scored, leads me to believe this team is a little more forward thinking than some believe. The issue may be that if the Swedes play defensively it gives us a different challenge in trying to break them down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Was more than pleased at the performance in context. France are on a very good two year run of results, with a number of excellent individuals and a much higher level of technical ability across the whole side. We set up to stifle and frustrate them, asking a lot of a few players, namely Young, AOC and Welbeck (who did very well IMO) to take responsibility for the attacking element of our game. Under the circumstances i.e. being out matched individually in pretty much every department other than goalkeeper we managed a point off probably the second best team in our half of the draw after Spain and arguably just above Italy; not bad going. We did this without the best player in our squad (Rooney) on the pitch and several first choice players not in the squad at all. Reckon we will get better (it was only the mangers third game) and after their defeat Sweden will be the best test. They will need a win and it should be a much more open game. With Rooney back for the Ukraine game (one I reckon they and us will both be looking to win, as I expect France to beat them) we should be competitive in this group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 great result against one of the form teams and one of the fav's to win it, England need to be better when they have the ball but the important thing is we looked really solid and it took a fantastic strike to get though our solid defence and midfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I'm seeing a pattern emerge with us England fans, if results don't go our way we blame everyone but our own players. Yesterday I was encouraged by Welbeck, Ox and Young as they looked dangerous and willing to attack but the way we played and allowed the French onto us was awful! People say it was a good result but it depends on what you expect us to achieve really doesn't it. If you are going by our normal standards then yes, it was a good result, however if you're going on the desire to win the tournament then it was awful. Had that been a knockout game it would have either resulted with the French getting a goal or going to penalties and we all know we're not strong there. If England want to actually win tournaments they need to stop playing like they're afraid to lose, the football in the second half was so negative I was almost hoping the French would score so we'd be forced to actually try attacking the game. The real deep issue is the teams that know how to attack win games when it comes to International football, hell Spain played with no strikers and scored as many goals as we did and had 18 shots, 9 on and 9 off target, we in comparison had 1 attempt on target (our goal) and 2 off target! 3 shots in 90 minutes and people think that's a good showing?! No wonder we'll never win anything if we're happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think the other thing with yesterday was that in the context of the 3 games under Hodgson, England have got progressively better against increasingly good opposition. We retained thw ball better (though improvement still needs to be made), we defended well and we showed creativity in attack. In some respects the test is now whether we can improve the performance again against weaker opposition; from what I saw of Sweden last night, if we stop Ibrahimovic, we stop Sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I'm seeing a pattern emerge with us England fans, if results don't go our way we blame everyone but our own players. Yesterday I was encouraged by Welbeck, Ox and Young as they looked dangerous and willing to attack but the way we played and allowed the French onto us was awful! People say it was a good result but it depends on what you expect us to achieve really doesn't it. If you are going by our normal standards then yes, it was a good result, however if you're going on the desire to win the tournament then it was awful. Had that been a knockout game it would have either resulted with the French getting a goal or going to penalties and we all know we're not strong there. If England want to actually win tournaments they need to stop playing like they're afraid to lose, the football in the second half was so negative I was almost hoping the French would score so we'd be forced to actually try attacking the game. The real deep issue is the teams that know how to attack win games when it comes to International football, hell Spain played with no strikers and scored as many goals as we did and had 18 shots, 9 on and 9 off target, we in comparison had 1 attempt on target (our goal) and 2 off target! 3 shots in 90 minutes and people think that's a good showing?! No wonder we'll never win anything if we're happy with that. I agree that it was worrying that we automatically dropped so deep after we scored, it's very difficult to defend a 1-0 lead for 60 minutes and actually I think that depth contributed directly to Nasri having so much time on the edge of our box. However, firstly a draw against a strong French team in the first game of a tournament is a good result in any context, but more so in this one. Secondly, who in their right mind has ambitions to win this tournament?! For me, a good showing in losing in the quarters would be about par for this side, though I think we could beat Italy if we played well. Semi-finals would be a massive bonus and the final would be dream land. If England continue to improve and some of the big hitters don't then we have a slim chance but I'd back an under performing Spain or Germany to beat this team playing quite well. It's all about appropriate expectations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think the other thing with yesterday was that in the context of the 3 games under Hodgson, England have got progressively better against increasingly good opposition. We retained thw ball better (though improvement still needs to be made), we defended well and we showed creativity in attack. In some respects the test is now whether we can improve the performance again against weaker opposition; from what I saw of Sweden last night, if we stop Ibrahimovic, we stop Sweden We showed creativity... in 3 players, who all never really had a chance with another manager. It's not Hodgsons good choice, it's the players finally being good enough for the first team at the right time so that isn't really a great positive. those three players are creative in nature and without them yesterday we would have looked dead in the water. We defended well? of course we did, we had 10 men behind the ball for almost 60 minutes of the game! Not to mention that despite "defending well" France managed more shots on target against us than any other team has managed against any other team in the tournament so far! We conceeded more shots on target than any other team in their opening game.. yeah great defence. The only reason we didn't concede more was purely down to Joe Hart making some great saves and the fact that we had so many people behind the ball that France had no space. Now we can argue that is a good thing that France had no space but it came at a huge cost... we had no attack. Three shots all game, only one on target and any non-Englishman with no bias who watched that match would say the French deserved to win and were the only team who actively attacked the game. I'm fed up of our crap "play for a draw or small win" attitude. With that attitude it's no surprise we never win anything, it's one thing to be strong in defence but what is the point if it costs us our ability to attack. We simply have no balance in the team and we need to play with a little more confidence and an air of self-belief and move the ball forward and take the game to our opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think the other thing with yesterday was that in the context of the 3 games under Hodgson, England have got progressively better against increasingly good opposition. We retained thw ball better (though improvement still needs to be made), we defended well and we showed creativity in attack. In some respects the test is now whether we can improve the performance again against weaker opposition; from what I saw of Sweden last night, if we stop Ibrahimovic, we stop Sweden Bang on. And people talking about needing to 'attack more' and concerned over what yesterday's performance going forward meant are, for me, missing the point a little (not being aggressive saying this btw). In each of the games so far we've set up to counter the opponents in front of us, the focus being to nullifying the threats posed first and foremost. Unlike under previous, more attack-focused managers (here's looking at you Keegan) we don't go into matches thinking that imposing our game on opponents will be enough, we identify the problems we might face and work up from that baseline. It isn't a natural fit for English players/fans, but look at sides like Italy and, to an extent, most successful smaller nations (Denmark and Greece are prime examples) to see how it can help groups of maybe less talented/extraordinary players go toe-to-toe with the big guns. I think with Rooney in the side in place of AOC, with Young pushed out to the wing in his place, we'd have a tough to beat side with a sharp attacking edge. The fact all three are Man U team mates will also be to our advantage. Let the rest of the side focus on protecting out goal and let them be responsible for getting our goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 We showed creativity... in 3 players, who all never really had a chance with another manager. It's not Hodgsons good choice, it's the players finally being good enough for the first team at the right time so that isn't really a great positive. those three players are creative in nature and without them yesterday we would have looked dead in the water. We defended well? of course we did, we had 10 men behind the ball for almost 60 minutes of the game! Not to mention that despite "defending well" France managed more shots on target against us than any other team has managed against any other team in the tournament so far! We conceeded more shots on target than any other team in their opening game.. yeah great defence. The only reason we didn't concede more was purely down to Joe Hart making some great saves and the fact that we had so many people behind the ball that France had no space. Now we can argue that is a good thing that France had no space but it came at a huge cost... we had no attack. Three shots all game, only one on target and any non-Englishman with no bias who watched that match would say the French deserved to win and were the only team who actively attacked the game. I'm fed up of our crap "play for a draw or small win" attitude. With that attitude it's no surprise we never win anything, it's one thing to be strong in defence but what is the point if it costs us our ability to attack. We simply have no balance in the team and we need to play with a little more confidence and an air of self-belief and move the ball forward and take the game to our opponents. The problem I think is the die is now cast, even though they lost Sweden produced a lot of chances and didn't look half bad at times, the Swedish defence looks like they will concede, but England will have to attack and I do not think that they are capable of that, we simply just do not have the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I agree that it was worrying that we automatically dropped so deep after we scored, it's very difficult to defend a 1-0 lead for 60 minutes and actually I think that depth contributed directly to Nasri having so much time on the edge of our box. However, firstly a draw against a strong French team in the first game of a tournament is a good result in any context, but more so in this one. Secondly, who in their right mind has ambitions to win this tournament?! For me, a good showing in losing in the quarters would be about par for this side, though I think we could beat Italy if we played well. Semi-finals would be a massive bonus and the final would be dream land. If England continue to improve and some of the big hitters don't then we have a slim chance but I'd back an under performing Spain or Germany to beat this team playing quite well. It's all about appropriate expectations You mean like the Euro 2004 Greece Team? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZDHLltOeVc Or the Portsmouth team that won the FA Cup in 07/08? Honestly we may as well not show up if we've got no intentions on at least going for it. If we're going to lose then why does it matter when in the tournament we lose? What good is getting to the Semi's or the Quarters if we still lose? Surely it's better to go out saying "we tried" than "we settled for a "fair position"". I'd much rather be a losing team that went for it than a losing team that played like losers. If the 2004 Greek team had the "let's just get a respectable position" attitude they'd never have won, that's the beauty of football, on any given day any given team can win, all it requires is some self belief, some confidence and more than anything, to actually take the game to the opposition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I had to listen to the game on the radio due to being in work at the time, it sounded like we were dominated. When I got home and watched the game I was actually impressed by the way we played. Yes France dominated possession ( which we knew they would) but we did keep the ball at times very well. Gerrard actually played the ball simply most of the time, the best I've seen from him for a long time. Hodgson must have finally talked to him about the importance of keeping the ball. Tournement football is so different from all other football,it's all about patience, ball retention and building throughout the competition. None of our defenders got booked which again makes a big difference if we get further in the tournement,as suspensions are so easy to get under the two booking rule I just hope we can play in a simaler way against Sweden, if we go back to the "English" way ( as we have in tournements for the last 20 years) we will get found out, as we always have. A bit more of an attacking threat would be nice, but we haven't really got the talent other than Rooney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I had to listen to the game on the radio due to being in work at the time, it sounded like we were dominated. When I got home and watched the game I was actually impressed by the way we played. Yes France dominated possession ( which we knew they would) but we did keep the ball at times very well. Gerrard actually played the ball simply most of the time, the best I've seen from him for a long time. Hodgson must have finally talked to him about the importance of keeping the ball. Tournement football is so different from all other football,it's all about patience, ball retention and building throughout the competition. None of our defenders got booked which again makes a big difference if we get further in the tournement,as suspensions are so easy to get under the two booking rule I just hope we can play in a simaler way against Sweden, if we go back to the "English" way ( as we have in tournements for the last 20 years) we will get found out, as we always have. A bit more of an attacking threat would be nice, but we haven't really got the talent other than Rooney. I sort of agree with you, but as I said the French keeper had nothing else to deal with and not only that we didn't even create another chance, to play successful counter attacking football you need to defend well (tick in the box there) creativity to create chances when opportunities arise and take them and is/was and that will be our problem, I can't see how we can change that I really don't. I would have felt happier had we missed a hatful of chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I had to listen to the game on the radio due to being in work at the time, it sounded like we were dominated. When I got home and watched the game I was actually impressed by the way we played. Yes France dominated possession ( which we knew they would) but we did keep the ball at times very well. Gerrard actually played the ball simply most of the time, the best I've seen from him for a long time. Hodgson must have finally talked to him about the importance of keeping the ball. Tournement football is so different from all other football,it's all about patience, ball retention and building throughout the competition. None of our defenders got booked which again makes a big difference if we get further in the tournement,as suspensions are so easy to get under the two booking rule I just hope we can play in a simaler way against Sweden, if we go back to the "English" way ( as we have in tournements for the last 20 years) we will get found out, as we always have. A bit more of an attacking threat would be nice, but we haven't really got the talent other than Rooney. Welbeck, Ox, Young, all just as capable, if not better than Rooney at creating. We've got the talent, we just need a manager to take a bold step and stop setting us out to play so negatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I sort of agree with you, but as I said the French keeper had nothing else to deal with and not only that we didn't even create another chance, to play successful counter attacking football you need to defend well (tick in the box there) creativity to create chances when opportunities arise and take them and is/was and that will be our problem, I can't see how we can change that I really don't. I would have felt happier had we missed a hatful of chances. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was overly enjoyable, but we are limited to the way we can play because we haven't got good enough players. If we had gone out hung ho against the French we would have got beaten heavily. The German 4-1 defeat in WC 2010 showed what happens when we go toe to toe with the better teams, they pick us off. Patience and ball retention are the only way this England team has a hope. Last night they did this well at times,and I hope we can do more of this in the coming games. Rooney will give us a better attacking threat against Ukraine, ( if selected) so it's a case of wait and see now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Welbeck, Ox, Young, all just as capable, if not better than Rooney at creating. We've got the talent, we just need a manager to take a bold step and stop setting us out to play so negatively. We have tried to be bold for tournement after tournement, we can't play that way and expect to beat the top teams, it's a fact, our record proves that. When are people going to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I sort of agree with you, but as I said the French keeper had nothing else to deal with and not only that we didn't even create another chance, to play successful counter attacking football you need to defend well (tick in the box there) creativity to create chances when opportunities arise and take them and is/was and that will be our problem, I can't see how we can change that I really don't. I would have felt happier had we missed a hatful of chances. i would like to have known how many more chances we would have created if the ref and seen the cynical fouls, when we were getting away from markers. On numerous occasions, Johnson, Ox, Young, Welbeck and Milner got away and into space, only to have been taken out. You cannot legislate for that, we have stuck to the game plan, hit them on the break quickly, only for the ref to miss it time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 We showed creativity... in 3 players, who all never really had a chance with another manager. It's not Hodgsons good choice, it's the players finally being good enough for the first team at the right time so that isn't really a great positive. those three players are creative in nature and without them yesterday we would have looked dead in the water. We defended well? of course we did, we had 10 men behind the ball for almost 60 minutes of the game! Not to mention that despite "defending well" France managed more shots on target against us than any other team has managed against any other team in the tournament so far! We conceeded more shots on target than any other team in their opening game.. yeah great defence. The only reason we didn't concede more was purely down to Joe Hart making some great saves and the fact that we had so many people behind the ball that France had no space. Now we can argue that is a good thing that France had no space but it came at a huge cost... we had no attack. Three shots all game, only one on target and any non-Englishman with no bias who watched that match would say the French deserved to win and were the only team who actively attacked the game. I'm fed up of our crap "play for a draw or small win" attitude. With that attitude it's no surprise we never win anything, it's one thing to be strong in defence but what is the point if it costs us our ability to attack. We simply have no balance in the team and we need to play with a little more confidence and an air of self-belief and move the ball forward and take the game to our opponents. I'm starting to think you were watching a different game to the rest of us... Yes we only had 3 creative players.... Except that Gerrard got forward on a number of occasions, Milner went round the keeper a number of times, Johnson and Cole (in the spells we were choosing to attack) got forward with regularity. How many French players really hurt us? Nasri scored a goal, Benzema had a couple of decent cracks from distance, Ribery threatened around the periphery... Their only other attacking threat was their right back If we conceded more shots on target than any other side so far then this tournament hasn't been a good one. I recall 5; one from which they scored, a header from a corner and 3 from distance of which only 1 tested Hart in any way. The stats I read were that France had 21 shots, 12 of which were blocked before they reached the goal. All their shots were from distance, we kept them at arms length I don't think the French 'deserved to win'; they didn't create enough clear chances to beat us. I'd actually say we had the better chances In your next post (can't multi quote on iPhone) you reference Greece as an example of a surprise team who won the Euros. If you can't see the irony of the comparison then I truly despair. No doubt if England had gone all gung-ho and attacked the French, been picked off and lost 4-2 you'd be on here bemoaning the naivety of the performance. Its become awfully fashionable to knock England but some people need to adjust their expectations of both results and style and accept that it was a decent performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 i would like to have known how many more chances we would have created if the ref and seen the cynical fouls, when we were getting away from markers. On numerous occasions, Johnson, Ox, Young, Welbeck and Milner got away and into space, only to have been taken out. You cannot legislate for that, we have stuck to the game plan, hit them on the break quickly, only for the ref to miss it time and time again. Most of those incidents were in incredibly non dangerous positions and a couple in our own half, I can only recall one in dangerous position (the foul on Gerrard in the 1st half) but you have inadvertently thrown up up another problem, England's free kicks are about as good as BCFC's and again in a counter attacking team you need a dead ball specialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 i would like to have known how many more chances we would have created if the ref and seen the cynical fouls, when we were getting away from markers. On numerous occasions, Johnson, Ox, Young, Welbeck and Milner got away and into space, only to have been taken out. You cannot legislate for that, we have stuck to the game plan, hit them on the break quickly, only for the ref to miss it time and time again. I'm not sure the ref 'missed' it, I think it's to do with a perception of the way England and English teams play so the benefit of the doubt is more likely to go to them than us. Cabaye should have had 3 yellow cards IMO and Evra and Mexes should have been booked for challenges we didn't even get free kicks for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Most of those incidents were in incredibly non dangerous positions and a couple in our own half, I can only recall one in dangerous position (the foul on Gerrard in the 1st half) but you have inadvertently thrown up up another problem, England's free kicks are about as good as BCFC's and again in a counter attacking team you need a dead ball specialist. But they were conceeding fouls (or rather, not conceeding fouls) in midfield to stop us breaking forward. The most blatant was Ox being pulled down off the ball when he was about to engage in a foot race with Mexes. It was on the half way line but Ox would have been through on goal. Not suggesting that equates to anothe goal for England, but it was cynical and should have been a yellow card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I'm starting to think you were watching a different game to the rest of us... Yes we only had 3 creative players.... Except that Gerrard got forward on a number of occasions, Milner went round the keeper a number of times, Johnson and Cole (in the spells we were choosing to attack) got forward with regularity. How many French players really hurt us? Nasri scored a goal, Benzema had a couple of decent cracks from distance, Ribery threatened around the periphery... Their only other attacking threat was their right back If we conceded more shots on target than any other side so far then this tournament hasn't been a good one. I recall 5; one from which they scored, a header from a corner and 3 from distance of which only 1 tested Hart in any way. The stats I read were that France had 21 shots, 12 of which were blocked before they reached the goal. All their shots were from distance, we kept them at arms length I don't think the French 'deserved to win'; they didn't create enough clear chances to beat us. I'd actually say we had the better chances In your next post (can't multi quote on iPhone) you reference Greece as an example of a surprise team who won the Euros. If you can't see the irony of the comparison then I truly despair. No doubt if England had gone all gung-ho and attacked the French, been picked off and lost 4-2 you'd be on here bemoaning the naivety of the performance. Its become awfully fashionable to knock England but some people need to adjust their expectations of both results and style and accept that it was a decent performance What chances were they?, there keeper never made a save, where as Hart made at least 3 smart saves (one of which was a great reaction save). I agree about England playing gung ho, of course I do. We are playing a system that suits the lack of creativity and strike power the squad has, but the next game we will be playing firstly against a side with little or nothing to lose now and a side who can create a lot of chances, and then a team at home also knowing that a win and they are through, I just cannot see us creating enough chances and I certainly don't see us scoring from the meagre amount of chances we may create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Most of those incidents were in incredibly non dangerous positions and a couple in our own half, I can only recall one in dangerous position (the foul on Gerrard in the 1st half) but you have inadvertently thrown up up another problem, England's free kicks are about as good as BCFC's and again in a counter attacking team you need a dead ball specialist. I feel, several of them were dangerous, ox was pulled back twice when running through against 2 players, with both young and welbeck in closeish proximity. A couple of deserved yellows would have resulted in those players sitting deeper. We had some really poor delivery from free kicks and corners, but there were 3 good balls, one of which resulted in a goal, certainly more work to be done. But the movement and change of routines by players in the box was positive. Something that can be worked on. I will be interested to see how we play in the next 2 Games. My prediction before the tournament was, draw with France, lose to Sweden and Ukraine! Hmm hope my prediction goes wrong from here in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit the Frog Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Mods, are we allowed to call this Le Roast Boeuf v The frogs?, don't want to offend anyone. None taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 What chances were they?, there keeper never made a save, where as Hart made at least 3 smart saves (one of which was a great reaction save). I agree about England playing gung ho, of course I do. We are playing a system that suits the lack of creativity and strike power the squad has, but the next game we will be playing firstly against a side with little or nothing to lose now and a side who can create a lot of chances, and then a team at home also knowing that a win and they are through, I just cannot see us creating enough chances and I certainly don't see us scoring from the meagre amount of chances we may create. To be fair, I think I'm perhaps placing too much significance on chances we should have created rather than ones we actually did. We had the best chance of the game though and it was one from which we didn't score Perhaps it's the optimist v the pessimist. I saw reasons for hope amongst the limitations, you see limitations shrouding the reasons for hope. I personally think there has been an upwards curve in the quality of the retention and use of the ball an in the way we've defended from Roys first friendly to last nights game. If that curve continues against a less threatening team (only Ibrahimavic should really hurt us) and we play with a little more positivity w should win. A for the Ukraine, there was a lot of vim and vigour in the way that attacked, but there was a big gap between midfield and defence and the defence to me looked shaky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.