[Football] England V Iran

[zefarelly]

Not wishing to piss on everyone’s bonfire but it was Iran. If we can stick 3 or 4 past the colonials and Taffs then you may have a point.

Polite notice.

we conceded 2 against Iran . . . We Still have championship defenders. . We will get shredded by a decent team. As usual.

 

[Eeyore]

And I remember when Scotland became World Champions in 1967…. Ok I was 7

I remember when Scotland won the World Cup in 1978.

I didn't watch it, but I remember the songs and celebrations.

 

[Randy McNob]

Anyone who says weak opposition - Algeria 2010, couldn't beat Switzerland 1996, scraped a win Egypt 1990,

What an enjoyable victory. Of course Iran aren't great (only something like the 20th best team in the world) and yes, we're unlikely to win it. But that was really good fun to watch bar VAR and the stoppages.

Great start

unfortunately the anti Englanf / anti Southgate btigade will no doubt hate this result and probably point towards weak opposiition, as they did in 2018, people who can never be the bigger man and admit they are wrong on this whilst the rest can be catagorised as those who don't know football. They can't wait for England to fail to prove they were right. No doubt if we do well like the last time you can bet they'll be riding that bandwagon

 

[Easy 10]

Anyone who says weak opposition - Algeria 2010, couldn't beat Switzerland 1996, scraped a win Egypt 1990,

unfortunately the anti Englanf / anti Southgate btigade will no doubt hate this result and probably point towards weak opposiition, as they did in 2018, people who can never be the bigger man and admit they are wrong on this whilst the rest can be catagorised as those who don't know football. They can't wait for England to fail to prove they were right. No doubt if we do well like the last time you can bet they'll be riding that bandwagon

Exactly.
Quite clearly Iran are not in our class, yet we've seriously laboured against this calibre of opposition in the past, who set up to frustrate and drag us down to their level. Quieroz is no mug, and knows how to organise a team to make it difficult. But England blew them away with craft, guile, speed and creativity.

We literally could not have done much better than that today. They scored a decent goal and got given a scabby VAR pen, but not before we were already on easy street. And the dynamics we had coming off the bench showed a strength in depth a lot of the bigger guns in this tournament would envy.

Nothing other than winning the whole thing will be good enough for the slaggers obviously, and they will be falling over themselves to come on here as soon as we play poorly and/or screw up, which is almost inevitable. But I'm looking forward to seeing this young vibrant team do well and hopefully go deep into this tournament. They really played some wonderful stuff today.

 

[Simster]

What room? I'm talking about various places in general, not NSC

But thanks for telling me you don't care.

I don't give a f*** about your opinion of me not caring. I didn't say I don't care because I was searching for your approval. Frankly you don't matter to me.

But if you had a gay son who had spent time struggling with his sexuality, and then found out the England captain had been forced to abandon his token but well meant protest one hour before kick off, you'd probably feel deflated and flat about the whole occasion too. That's why I lost all interest, and yet I love world cups.

 

[One Love]

Well that performance was a big surprise for me, very enjoyable.

Probably going to be the usual raising hopes for us to crash and burn but it looks like we've turned up to give it a go.

Really strong bench too

 

[Mellotron]

Bar Brazil I'm genuinely struggling to think of another side at the tournament with as much strength in depth in attacking areas as us.

Perhaps France - Mbappe, Griezmann and Giroud is a decent set. But I think we're certainly stronger than Spain or Germany, I would argue stronger than Belgium as well.

 

[Jeremiah]

We are going to win it, aren't we?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

We are going to win it, aren't we?

Stone him! Flog him! Or at the very least imprison him for 25 years for that post!!!! Heresy.

 

[Eric the meek]

Stone him! Flog him! Or at the very least imprison him for 25 years for that post!!!! Heresy.

You won't be saying that when we're 4 up in the final with 2 minutes to go, and Grealish has got the ball in the opposition corner.

 

[Machiavelli]

Exactly.
Quite clearly Iran are not in our class, yet we've seriously laboured against this calibre of opposition in the past, who set up to frustrate and drag us down to their level. Quieroz is no mug, and knows how to organise a team to make it difficult. But England blew them away with craft, guile, speed and creativity.

We literally could not have done much better than that today. They scored a decent goal and got given a scabby VAR pen, but not before we were already on easy street. And the dynamics we had coming off the bench showed a strength in depth a lot of the bigger guns in this tournament would envy.

Nothing other than winning the whole thing will be good enough for the slaggers obviously, and they will be falling over themselves to come on here as soon as we play poorly and/or screw up, which is almost inevitable. But I'm looking forward to seeing this young vibrant team do well and hopefully go deep into this tournament. They really played some wonderful stuff today.

Agreed. I get relentlessly bored by know-it-all football fans that spend their time slagging off Southgate. When I indicated that, alongside Bobby Robson, he's been the best England manager since I've been watching football, I was told that Southgate wasn't up to it, because Italy were there for the taking in the Euros final, and England went into their shell because Southgate is too cautious. Not only does such a view convey that the analyst/fan knows more about football than Southgate, but it also neglects the obvious: namely, that England were in a Euros final for the first time in their history, which was lost on penalties. It also neglects the issue that Southgate has taken England to a World Cup semi-final for only the third(?) time in their history.

In terms of this team, I worry about the defence and goalkeeper, and suspect that this will be what prevents them going that far. I suspect that Southgate does too and, once we're confronted with decent opposition in the knockout stages, he'll revert to a back five as a result. That would be a shame because, like you, I think the midfield and attack is rich in quality and quantity, but it'd be an understandable move.
I suspect the know-it-alls will blame it on Southgate for fielding a back five, and not going for it ("when the opposition are there for the taking").

 

[Jeremiah]

Stone him! Flog him! Or at the very least imprison him for 25 years for that post!!!! Heresy.

I do apologise - I came over all weak and silly after laughing so much at Argentina.

 

[Mellotron]

Agreed. I get relentlessly bored by know-it-all football fans that spend their time slagging off Southgate. When I indicated that, alongside Bobby Robson, he's been the best England manager since I've been watching football, I was told that Southgate wasn't up to it, because Italy were there for the taking in the Euros final, and England went into their shell because Southgate is too cautious. Not only does such a view convey that the analyst/fan knows more about football than Southgate, but it also neglects the obvious: namely, that England were in a Euros final for the first time in their history, which was lost on penalties. It also neglects the issue that Southgate has taken England to a World Cup semi-final for only the third(?) time in their history.

In terms of this team, I worry about the defence and goalkeeper, and suspect that this will be what prevents them going that far. I suspect that Southgate does too and, once we're confronted with decent opposition in the knockout stages, he'll revert to a back five as a result. That would be a shame because, like you, I think the midfield and attack is rich in quality and quantity, but it'd be an understandable move.
I suspect the know-it-alls will blame it on Southgate for fielding a back five, and not going for it ("when the opposition are there for the taking").

The Italy final is a great example of recent history being rewritten to suit a narrative - to quite a ludicrous extent IMO. Many people talk as if we were battered 3-0. Like it was a masterplan by Mancini for Rashford to miss that third pen by a few inches.

Yes, they won the midfield battle and settled us down after we had a decent start. But it came down to the absolute finest of margins between TWO excellent teams after 120 minutes.

 

[Stato]

I can't understand why people are arguing after yesterday's result. It was enjoyable and yet it taught us nothing new. We know that we have very good attacking players. We know that our defence is less strong. We know that Southgate has been a very good tournament manager. We know that he has been limited tactically in crunch games. The team played well against an Iran side that wanted to sit deep. Bellingham's excellent header meant that they had to change their approach and we picked them apart very effectively. Good to see very decent finishing from a number of the attacking players.

Criticism of Southgate that I have seen does not follow the 'Can't do anything right' pattern that has been suggested. Critics have said that he has favourites, but more importantly, that we lost a semi-final and a final from leading positions because he was too cautious after we went ahead. Yesterday's game was never going to show us whether he has learned from his mistakes. That test will come against opposition who will fancy their chances of winning this thing.

Southgate was right to say that we played well, but that he expects better in terms of defensive concentration. Blips in a game where you score six are forgivable and well timed and can provide a learning experience for future games. Over the first hurdle with style and seemingly no injuries. Decent goal difference. The draw between Wales and USA was probably what we would have liked as you'd be surprised if either of them beat Iran as heavily. One more win or two draws will probably get us through. All good. On to the next hurdle. Why the debate?

 

[Mellotron]

I can't understand why people are arguing after yesterday's result. It was enjoyable and yet it taught us nothing new. We know that we have very good attacking players. We know that our defence is less strong. We know that Southgate has been a very good tournament manager. We know that he has been limited tactically in crunch games. The team played well against an Iran side that wanted to sit deep. Bellingham's excellent header meant that they had to change their approach and we picked them apart very effectively. Good to see very decent finishing from a number of the attacking players.

Criticism of Southgate that I have seen does not follow the 'Can't do anything right' pattern that has been suggested. Critics have said that he has favourites, but more importantly, that we lost a semi-final and a final from leading positions because he was too cautious after we went ahead. Yesterday's game was never going to show us whether he has learned from his mistakes. That test will come against opposition who will fancy their chances of winning this thing.

Southgate was right to say that we played well, but that he expects better in terms of defensive concentration. Blips in a game where you score six are forgivable and well timed and can provide a learning experience for future games. Over the first hurdle with style and seemingly no injuries. Decent goal difference. The draw between Wales and USA was probably what we would have liked as you'd be surprised if either of them beat Iran as heavily. One more win or two draws will probably get us through. All good. On to the next hurdle. Why the debate?

Whilst I agree (as per usual) with almost everything you say...

I think there's a chance in tournaments past that he would've played 3 at the back and/or 2 DMs, which against a side like Iran is definitely too cautious. Yet he played a flat 4 and only 1 DM, which to me does show a bit more willingness to give freedom and take risks, and it was richly rewarded.

Think how we played against Tunisia in 2-1. Arguably similar level of opponent (just held Denmark to a 0-0). Now compare that to yesterday. I think that's what people are pleased to see. We don't historically put defensively tough sides to the sword - we usually struggle and toil and just about make it over the line (or don't, in some cases).

 

[Stato]

Whilst I agree (as per usual) with almost everything you say...

I think there's a chance in tournaments past that he would've played 3 at the back and/or 2 DMs, which against a side like Iran is definitely too cautious. Yet he played a flat 4 and only 1 DM, which to me does show a bit more willingness to give freedom and take risks, and it was richly rewarded.

Think how we played against Tunisia in 2-1. Arguably similar level of opponent (just held Denmark to a 0-0). Now compare that to yesterday. I think that's what people are pleased to see. We don't historically put defensively tough sides to the sword - we usually struggle and toil and just about make it over the line (or don't, in some cases).

You make a good point and I hope it points to greater ambition against the top level opposition. The fact that he now has Bellingham to do a creative midfield job whilst also being defensively sound could be key.

 

[Bodian]

We rolled over a lower ranked team. Something we have struggled to do in the past. We can't really then moan that it was 'easy' and somehow doesn't therefore count.

See Argentina.

 

[Stato]

We rolled over a lower ranked team. Something we have struggled to do in the past. We can't really then moan that it was 'easy' and somehow doesn't therefore count.

See Argentina.

Yes, see Argentina and laugh as the ball sails past that time-wasting cheat Martinez.

 

[Eeyore]

I can't understand why people are arguing after yesterday's result. It was enjoyable and yet it taught us nothing new. We know that we have very good attacking players. We know that our defence is less strong. We know that Southgate has been a very good tournament manager. We know that he has been limited tactically in crunch games. The team played well against an Iran side that wanted to sit deep. Bellingham's excellent header meant that they had to change their approach and we picked them apart very effectively. Good to see very decent finishing from a number of the attacking players.

Criticism of Southgate that I have seen does not follow the 'Can't do anything right' pattern that has been suggested. Critics have said that he has favourites, but more importantly, that we lost a semi-final and a final from leading positions because he was too cautious after we went ahead. Yesterday's game was never going to show us whether he has learned from his mistakes. That test will come against opposition who will fancy their chances of winning this thing.

Southgate was right to say that we played well, but that he expects better in terms of defensive concentration. Blips in a game where you score six are forgivable and well timed and can provide a learning experience for future games. Over the first hurdle with style and seemingly no injuries. Decent goal difference. The draw between Wales and USA was probably what we would have liked as you'd be surprised if either of them beat Iran as heavily. One more win or two draws will probably get us through. All good. On to the next hurdle. Why the debate?

Indeed. beat USA and we are through. That draw yesterday allows us a blip. Beat USA and Wales fail to beat Iran means we probably top the group. Beat USA and Wales draw with Iran and we do top the group. That would be useful as changes could be made for the Wales match.

Anyway, let's not get ahead of meself.

You're not the only Statto !