[Football] To the "England have been shit" crowd...

[Kinky Gerbil]

Seriously, I've heard people wheel out "It's just SAME old England, innit".

Ummmmm, NO. No it's not.

Our draws against Russia and Slovakia are a LIGHT YEAR away from those against Algeria and Costa Rica in 2010 and 2014.

We are playing WELL. The amount of shots we've had alone shows we are a creative team. It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if we smack Iceland 3-0. Someone is due one from us.

That along with people laughing at Comments about us improving if we play a better side.

I can honestly see us dry humping France if we play them as they will come at us.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Seriously, I've heard people wheel out "It's just SAME old England, innit".

Ummmmm, NO. No it's not.

Our draws against Russia and Slovakia are a LIGHT YEAR away from those against Algeria and Costa Rica in 2010 and 2014.

We are playing WELL. The amount of shots we've had alone shows we are a creative team. It wouldn't surprise me ONE BIT if we smack Iceland 3-0. Someone is due one from us.

It's also good to see England keeping possession much better these days and passing the ball more fluently rather than lumping it forward into the mixer at the first sign of trouble. Admittedly, there are times when England need to up the tempo rather than going for another safe pass as was happening when Slovakia were frustrating them, but on the whole I'd sooner England play that way than pumping it long to find an Andy Carroll-esque striker's head when they run out of ideas.

 

[Triggaaar]

Totally agree with the opening post, come on England, it's ours for the taking.

It was ours for the taking, if we'd won our group.

We knew that finishing 2nd would mean a quarter final against France (if we get through the round of 16).
Finishing 1st meant a quarter final against F1 or E2 - even if that was Portugal, who hadn't won either of their first two games, it would have been preferable to playing France at home.

Now we have to beat France, then Italy, Spain or Germany, instead of Hungary followed by Croatia.

Roy shouldn't have put out a second team against Slovakia, it's cost us big.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It was ours for the taking, if we'd won our group.

We knew that finishing 2nd would mean a quarter final against France (if we get through the round of 16).
Finishing 1st meant a quarter final against F1 or E2 - even if that was Portugal, who hadn't won either of their first two games, it would have been preferable to playing France at home.

Now we have to beat France, then Italy, Spain or Germany, instead of Hungary followed by Croatia.

Roy shouldn't have put out a second team against Slovakia, it's cost us big.

If you have designs on winning a tournament you need to beat good and inform teams; you can't expect an easy route to the final. The order shouldn't matter.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well I've spent the last week in Croatia and view over here is England are looking very good. Would have posted earlier but only just sobered up after Croatia Spain

 

[Triggaaar]

If you have designs on winning a tournament you need to beat good and inform teams; you can't expect an easy route to the final. The order shouldn't matter.

You realise that's complete nonsense right? Of course the order matters, that's why Croatia are now as short odds as us to win, and Italy are much longer odds. You're more likely to win the whole thing if you play more average sides on the route to the final.

 

[One Love]

instead of Hungary followed by Croatia.

I must have missed that the second ranked team in the world had forfeited their last 16 game.

Roy shouldn't have put out a second team against Slovakia, it's cost us big.

We'll never know if the first team would have won. They couldn't beat Russia who have looked like the worst team in the tournament. They might have lost.

 

[Triggaaar]

I must have missed that the second ranked team in the world had forfeited their last 16 game.

I think you can work out the point, I didn't need to list all games.

We'll never know if the first team would have won. They couldn't beat Russia who have looked like the worst team in the tournament. They might have lost.

But you've obviously got more chance of winning with your first team, that's why they're the first team. Resting so many players was clearly a bad idea.

 

[Thimble Keegan]

That's how I feel. I've gone from being super-enthusiastic about England - up until the South Africa World Cup - to complete indifference mainly because of the attitude of the players and gradually my interest is getting back up but I'm trying to manage expectations better so not to get too disappointed.

I think at times too many England fans, myself included, have the same attitude to England winning that Geordies have about Newcastle - completely unrealistic expectations given the squad we have and the strengths of the other big teams. Not being a big Premier League fan though doesn't help me because I struggle to recognise who half the England team are.

Same here. I used to be a huge England fan and put them above the Albion...When I saw them play, my support just used to go up a notch. But now I am all rather "meh" about the national side and it appears my interest drained away about the same time yours did.

I do want England to do well, but I found I had no love for the players. I enjoyed watching the so called "Golden Generation" as the players were good and seemed to care but I could not relate to the crop of players that followed. This pretty much lead to my decision to stop going to away games...I know we all say it is about the beers and seeing someplace new but with no affection for the team it still felt pretty hollow.

My last away game was Bulgaria where we spent a week out on the coast and got a coach to Sofia for the match. We played well and won 3-0 but I just could not muster much enthusiasm. I still goto home games as I work in London and can jump on the tube to Wembley but that is a horribly souless experience these days.

Strange and all rather sad really, but the Albion's resurgence in recent years has helped placate the loss of my England mojo.

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Croydon BHA

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I think it's all about expectation.

We've spent (at least) the last two years talking about how we're not one of the big boys. That our team is one of the many in the big group of 'average'. With that in mind and considering we are a team that clearly is better on the counter or at least with a bit of space to play into what are people really expecting when we play three teams who look like they don't want to leave their penalty box let alone their half?

Spain are a nation that are set up to deal with this type of scenario. They've spent the best part of a decade dealing with it, their footballers are all trained to play a way that can deal with it and yet it often takes them a long, long time to break teams down and they often win by only a goal. So what exactly are people expecting a team that isn't designed to play against massed ranks of defense and has players who aren't trained to play that way and aren't, honestly, as good as their Spanish counterparts, to do?

For the most part we've done reasonably well. We've kept possession and tried to use it offensively(rather than aimlessly passing it around the defense), we've played, mostly, at a decent tempo, we've created plenty of chances and shooting opportunities, and even as the clock has ticked down we haven't lumped it but have tried to play our way through(see Sturridge's winner against Wales).

I think there have been far more positives than negatives and I also think that if one of the other groups had shaken down like ours has we'd all be saying of the England equivalent that they look a pretty good team. Not good enough to win it perhaps but not a bad team either. But no, it's England, and people have decided that because it's England (and we're not the best team in the tournament) we must be shit. We have our scapegoats already in the shapes of Sterling and Hodgson.

Oh, and for those people who say that Hodgson doesn't know his strongest team or formation - he does. If you'd paid attention over the past two years you'd know that his first choice formation is 4-3-3 and the diamond midfield is his back up. He switches between the two as and when it's needed but primarily he plays 4-3-3. As for his strongest team I'm fairly confident that at least 8, probably 9 or 10, of the following will start against Iceland: Hart, Walker, Smalling, Cahill, Rose, Dier, Rooney, Alli, Lallana, Sturridge, Kane.

 

[brightn'ove]

Roy shouldn't have put out a second team against Slovakia, it's cost us big.

I really don't agree, even if we'd played the same starting 11 as against Russia or Wales we wouldn't have scored. We just couldn't break them down. It wasn't a weaker team either (imo).

 

[Machiavelli]

I think it's all about expectation.

We've spent (at least) the last two years talking about how we're not one of the big boys. That our team is one of the many in the big group of 'average'. With that in mind and considering we are a team that clearly is better on the counter or at least with a bit of space to play into what are people really expecting when we play three teams who look like they don't want to leave their penalty box let alone their half?

Spain are a nation that are set up to deal with this type of scenario. They've spent the best part of a decade dealing with it, their footballers are all trained to play a way that can deal with it and yet it often takes them a long, long time to break teams down and they often win by only a goal. So what exactly are people expecting a team that isn't designed to play against massed ranks of defense and has players who aren't trained to play that way and aren't, honestly, as good as their Spanish counterparts, to do?

For the most part we've done reasonably well. We've kept possession and tried to use it offensively(rather than aimlessly passing it around the defense), we've played, mostly, at a decent tempo, we've created plenty of chances and shooting opportunities, and even as the clock has ticked down we haven't lumped it but have tried to play our way through(see Sturridge's winner against Wales).

I think there have been far more positives than negatives and I also think that if one of the other groups had shaken down like ours has we'd all be saying of the England equivalent that they look a pretty good team. Not good enough to win it perhaps but not a bad team either. But no, it's England, and people have decided that because it's England (and we're not the best team in the tournament) we must be shit. We have our scapegoats already in the shapes of Sterling and Hodgson.

Oh, and for those people who say that Hodgson doesn't know his strongest team or formation - he does. If you'd paid attention over the past two years you'd know that his first choice formation is 4-3-3 and the diamond midfield is his back up. He switches between the two as and when it's needed but primarily he plays 4-3-3. As for his strongest team I'm fairly confident that at least 8, probably 9 or 10, of the following will start against Iceland: Hart, Walker, Smalling, Cahill, Rose, Dier, Rooney, Alli, Lallana, Sturridge, Kane.

Thanks for typing all this, saves me the effort. I think that will, and should, be the starting line-up.
I feel a bit sorry for Vardy, and am struggling to see those match situations when his style of play will be effective.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It was ours for the taking, if we'd won our group.

We knew that finishing 2nd would mean a quarter final against France (if we get through the round of 16).
Finishing 1st meant a quarter final against F1 or E2 - even if that was Portugal, who hadn't won either of their first two games, it would have been preferable to playing France at home.

Now we have to beat France, then Italy, Spain or Germany, instead of Hungary followed by Croatia.

Roy shouldn't have put out a second team against Slovakia, it's cost us big.

Rather than Belgium and Croatia?

really is not much of a difference

 

[Thimble Keegan]

For as long as we ask our players to play so many matches in what is the longest, hardest, season in Europe,without any kind of mid-winter break, and with major tournaments, the Euros, and the World Cup starting so soon afterwards, we will never have much of a chance of winning anything.

Our players are just too knackered.

I cannot really agree with this.

Whilst there maybe an argument that we play a little too much football I am not sure a winter break is the answer. There might be a small benefit if the players actually took a rest say, in early January, but all that will happen is the big clubs will just go off on tour and play some friendlies to satisfy sponsors and the like.

Also, if memory serves, was it not Sven-Göran Eriksson who made the authorities change the 2005-2006 fixtures?...This lead to the FA Cup Final and season ending games being moved so the players could have a rest following the domestic campaign. We made the quarter-finals, which was no better than we had done 4 years prior.

So a winter break will probably not have any bearing on England's performance and it has not been detrimental this time round either...We have played quite well so far and I have been happy enough with our performances. As always, the only thing stopping us winning the tournament are better teams!

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Croydon BHA

 

[Triggaaar]

I really don't agree, even if we'd played the same starting 11 as against Russia or Wales we wouldn't have scored.

Obviously you can't know that. If it wasn't a weaker team, then I wouldn't be complaining.

It wasn't a weaker team either (imo).

Oh come on. Walker & Rose off, replaced by Clyne & Bertrand. Clyne did really well, but it was against a weak opposition. Bertrand wasn't good enough.
Alli off, Henderson on
Rooney, our best player in the first two games off, Wilshere on.

Kane looked like he needed a rest, so no complaints there, and Sterling was poor in the first games and rightly dropped. But if we'd played Walker, Rose, Alli and Rooney I expect we'd have won.

Rather than Belgium and Croatia?

really is not much of a difference

France are the 4 to 1 favourites, despite being on the bad side of the draw, so yes, I'd rather play Belgium or Croatia.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If you made a composite team of England and Croatia based on this tournament then I fancy Modric, Rakitic, Perisic and Srna would be in it, probably Mandzukic and Brozovic too.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Obviously you can't know that. If it wasn't a weaker team, then I wouldn't be complaining.

Oh come on. Walker & Rose off, replaced by Clyne & Bertrand. Clyne did really well, but it was against a weak opposition. Bertrand wasn't good enough.
Alli off, Henderson on
Rooney, our best player in the first two games off, Wilshere on.

Kane looked like he needed a rest, so no complaints there, and Sterling was poor in the first games and rightly dropped. But if we'd played Walker, Rose, Alli and Rooney I expect we'd have won.

France are the 4 to 1 favourites, despite being on the bad side of the draw, so yes, I'd rather play Belgium or Croatia.

The side isnt better that ours, the squad certainly isnt.

Hugo aside, would any of the back 5 get in the england team? no.

Granted the have Pogba and Payet but the rest of the midfield is meh and I am confident Dier will b[e able to control One of them

 

[boik]

I remember Graeme Souness saying that he could take 11 people off the street and drill them to stop any team playing. That is what we have been up against. Did you see Wales other 2 games? Nobody was scared enough of them to park the bus and so it was pretty easy to score. In fact the Russians seemed determined not to get in Wales way.

England have been pretty good against the bus-parkers. Unfortunately Iceland may also try this approach. If someone actually tries to win a game against us then we will see. We may be sh!t or we may revel in the extra space as we did in the friendlies against France Holland and Germany.

 

[Triggaaar]

The side isnt better that ours, the squad certainly isnt.

You're trying to argue that we're as well off facing France and then Germany or Spain than Belgium then Croatia. You're being silly.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

You're trying to argue that we're as well off facing France and then Germany or Spain than Belgium then Croatia. You're being silly.

Well croatia beat spain so they are better perhaps? Germany have looked average and defensively suspect in at least one game. I think between belgium and france i would probably just about rather play belgium but its a close run thing and france are under pressure to perform at home. If you get to the quarter finals you should expect to be facing a top 8 side and we certainly have an easier run than italy/spain