Football World Cup 2018 Discussions

[jjsquirrel]

Yeah i got that one wrong .England look way more tired later in the game then Croatia which came as a big shock .Croatia upped the pace in the second half and extra time and England fell apart .No idea where they got the energy to be honest .

 

 

From all english media slamming them and saying they would be tired

[Mentor]

England was disappointing, they could of done much better. Truth is? England lost all the games they should of lost (Croatia + Belgium x2). Getting to the semi was a huge success i think.

 

Croatia has proven to be a tough cookie, but France was the best overall team, they deserve to win it.

[jefframrod]

Getting to the semi final is, as you say, a huge success and you can’t take that away from the team. Personally I feel Croatia and Belgium ARE better than England but I would think most English fans would have argued they are better than Croatia. When you therefore consider the games they have won (Tunisia, Panama and Sweden with a draw and penalty win over Colombia) how many positives can you really take from the individual results?

 

I’m not trying to diminish the overall achievement. I agree the players should be pleased and the fans and media should praise them for their efforts. I just don’t think it makes them real contenders on the world stage which I feel the media are now portraying them as. All that will lead to is the usual overly optimistic expectations on the team and the unfair pressure that comes with being an England player.

[joseppe]

England biggest problem is they think they can defend a 1-0 lead everytime & they fuck it up against the better teams. The Croatia game should ahve been over before half time the chances we had then we get into the 2nd half & sit back & sit back then wonder why the pressure equals a goal lol. Belgium are by far abetter team than us but Craotia nah

[Bwang]

As the commentators said, if Januzaj hadn't scored that goal then Belgium would probably be in the final, and the favourites to win it! England got the easier route but couldn't capitalise.

Harry Kane should've tucked that one in at close range around the post..

Disappointing but kind of inevitable for an England fan. We did have the youngest squad at the tournament so there's promise there for the future.

[Mentor]

When you therefore consider the games they have won (Tunisia, Panama and Sweden with a draw and penalty win over Colombia) how many positives can you really take from the individual results?

 

I’m not trying to diminish the overall achievement. I agree the players should be pleased and the fans and media should praise them for their efforts. I just don’t think it makes them real contenders on the world stage which I feel the media are now portraying them as. All that will lead to is the usual overly optimistic expectations on the team and the unfair pressure that comes with being an England player.

 

I agree, if you look at the results, England did not really win any tough game. I think that going into the tournament, most English fans would not be surprised to win Sweden, Tunisia and Panama. The Columbia game is one we could of easily lost via penalties. So we ended up with 3 wins, 1 draw (win via penalties) and 3 losses. Getting to the semi-final was fantastic, but the individual results were not. Worse of all is that now England fans expectations are probably through the roof, but in reality, there is very little world class players in the squad. The good news is that most of the team is young, so they could develop together and come back strong in the Euro's or World cup in 4 years time.

[jefframrod]

There are definitely some of the squad that will be worth keeping an eye on while others will struggle to fulfil their potential. It’s just the way football is. Fans need to not get carried away, pundits need to keep their heads and not put too much pressure on these young guys and, in my opinion, Jesse Lingard needs to be placed as far from an England squad as possible. I don’t know if I’m in a huge minority here but I just feel there must be better options.

[Mentor]

I think both Lingard and Rashford are extremely crude at the moment, they both need more playing time at club level, but both do have good traits. Lingard faded at the tournament went on. Personally i do not like Sterling either, he is a selfish fucker, his IQ is at the level of a pea and his finishing is abysmal, being the fastest English player is what keeps him on the team though and the secondary options (Lingard and Rashford) are not better.

 

I also did not like how Kane was generally utilized, they played him way too deep, more of a pure #10 instead of a #9. He could not get on the ball close enough to shoot and relied a lot on the wingers to get shots. At Spurs we have him spearheading with the wingers playing behind him, not in front of him like they do with England.

[Guest]

I think both Lingard and Rashford are extremely crude at the moment, they both need more playing time at club level, but both do have good traits. Lingard faded at the tournament went on. Personally i do not like Sterling either, he is a selfish fucker, his IQ is at the level of a pea and his finishing is abysmal, being the fastest English player is what keeps him on the team though and the secondary options (Lingard and Rashford) are not better.

 

I also did not like how Kane was generally utilized, they played him way too deep, more of a pure #10 instead of a #9. He could not get on the ball close enough to shoot and relied a lot on the wingers to get shots. At Spurs we have him spearheading with the wingers playing behind him, not in front of him like they do with England.

 

Absolutely spot on about Kane. Unfortunately he was forced to sit deep a bit because of the lack of creativity in the England squad that Lingard or Alli should have (in theory) offered. Though, anyone who watches Alli should know that his style is not based on creating chances, he is more of a second striker, and a goalscoring threat. This made Lingard's role (especially when Alli was playing) extremely vital, but he disappointed. I said from the start that England lacked creativity in the midfield, really could have used a Chamberlain (if he was fit) or a Lallana or a Wilshere. I think England deserve credit for making it to fourth place, even if it was a relatively easy route. Still deserve some credit for beating Colombia at least (even if they were without James) as they are a really solid team. England showed good potential and a good winning mentality, but ultimately Croatia are a very strong team. Sterling was disappointing as you say, he always is for England, no idea how he scored so many in the league with his finishing.

 

Either way the England squad showed good potential, but Southgate will have to put a bit more thought into how he sets up his team in the future, could see RLC being a bigger role in the future, any player like him would give England more balance. Congrats to France for a good tournament, slightly underwhelming in the first half of the final, but were lethal in the second half.

[Mentor]

Yeah you are right about all the comments. Ali cannot be your main creative outlet, he is a second striker really. He can be useful pressing in the middle as well and although he can get the odd assist, that is not his main job. Pushing Kane in a more creative role was mainly out of necessity i think, the problem is that Lingard and Sterling being your scoring outlets was always going to be a huge problem. The problem is who to play as the play maker? Wilshire is nowhere near the level (although he is the right type of player), Chamberlain was not fit and i doubt he can be a reliable option here. I think Lallana would be an ok option, but that is the problem, he is at most an ok option. So i think it comes more down to not having anyone rather than bad selections.

[Guest]

Yeah you are right about all the comments. Ali cannot be your main creative outlet, he is a second striker really. He can be useful pressing in the middle as well and although he can get the odd assist, that is not his main job. Pushing Kane in a more creative role was mainly out of necessity i think, the problem is that Lingard and Sterling being your scoring outlets was always going to be a huge problem. The problem is who to play as the play maker? Wilshire is nowhere near the level (although he is the right type of player), Chamberlain was not fit and i doubt he can be a reliable option here. I think Lallana would be an ok option, but that is the problem, he is at most an ok option. So i think it comes more down to not having anyone rather than bad selections.

 

At the very least Wilshere should have come instead of someone like Welbeck, who served absolutely no purpose in the tournament, and I dont think Southgate ever had any intention of having him play more than a handful of minutes. I disagree that Wilshere is far off the level, Lallana was England's player of the year for 2016, so he would have been a good option for sure had he not been injured. I wouldn't play Wilshere in the CAM role, but rather next to Henderson as a vessel to move the ball pas the opponents midfield before offloading to Alli/Lingard/Whoever is playing CAM. In my opinion it's better to have slightly worse players in a functional tactic than slightly better players in a dysfunctional tactic.