World Cup 2018

DeVlaeminck

Squad lacked quality and aided by an amazingly kind draw went about as far as could be expected. The idea this bunch of players are destined for greatness is bullshit but some of them could form the nucleus of a really good side if we get some talent coming through to join them. The lad at Man City (Foden?) looks to be destined for greatness and a few more from that successful England youth side could make a difference.

Southgate needs to learn from tonight, for all the praise heaped on him he was like a rabbit in the headlights against Croatia, they were so much on top for so long but his only response was a like for like change up front. It's a worry because he has no record to speak of as a club manager and part of the job is to react when things aren't going well. If it was France, Belgium or Brazil I might hold my hands up and say they have too much quality all over the pitch but Croatia had a mixed record in qualifying, they are excellent in places but not one to eleven, we let them play to their strengths and by the end could have no argument about the result.

milemuncher1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Squad lacked quality and aided by an amazingly kind draw went about as far as could be expected. The idea this bunch of players are destined for greatness is bullshit but some of them could form the nucleus of a really good side if we get some talent coming through to join them. The lad at Man City (Foden?) looks to be destined for greatness and a few more from that successful England youth side could make a difference.

Southgate needs to learn from tonight, for all the praise heaped on him he was like a rabbit in the headlights against Croatia, they were so much on top for so long but his only response was a like for like change up front. It's a worry because he has no record to speak of as a club manager and part of the job is to react when things aren't going well. If it was France, Belgium or Brazil I might hold my hands up and say they have too much quality all over the pitch but Croatia had a mixed record in qualifying, they are excellent in places but not one to eleven, we let them play to their strengths and by the end could have no argument about the result.

Well said.

DeVlaeminck

Dinyull wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Pross wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

orraloon wrote:

You know this 'it's coming home' vibe that has regained currency? What's coming home? Wasn't Jules Rimet French? Jest sayin' like.

Nerdy fact alert.

It's coming home refers to a football tournament in 96 coming home. Not the trophy.

And so the song has made absolutely no sense any time it has been sung by England supporters ever since. They seem completely unable to grasp that concept.

Who says it refers to the tournament coming home, pretty sure when they wrote it they were aware it could refer to England winning as well as the debatable idea that England is the birthplace of football.

Only the peeps that wrote it.

Three lions on a shirt!
Jules Rimet still gleaming,
Thirty years of hurt
Never stopped me dreaming.
I know that was then, but it could be again..
It's coming home,
​It's coming home, it's coming,
Football's coming home.

FFS the juxtaposition of the verses repeatedly saying we could win this and the chorus saying football's coming home make it pretty clear that part of the meaning is that England were going to win. The song was redone for 1998 too, what was the meaning then as I don't remember the 98 world cup being held in England?

finchy

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Squad lacked quality and aided by an amazingly kind draw went about as far as could be expected. The idea this bunch of players are destined for greatness is bullshit but some of them could form the nucleus of a really good side if we get some talent coming through to join them. The lad at Man City (Foden?) looks to be destined for greatness and a few more from that successful England youth side could make a difference.

Southgate needs to learn from tonight, for all the praise heaped on him he was like a rabbit in the headlights against Croatia, they were so much on top for so long but his only response was a like for like change up front. It's a worry because he has no record to speak of as a club manager and part of the job is to react when things aren't going well. If it was France, Belgium or Brazil I might hold my hands up and say they have too much quality all over the pitch but Croatia had a mixed record in qualifying, they are excellent in places but not one to eleven, we let them play to their strengths and by the end could have no argument about the result.

But Croatia have got tons of experience playing together as a team. Give it another 2/4 years and the addition of a decent attacking CM. If Chelsea could just help Ross Barkley finally live up to his potential, that would be a good start.

rick_chasey

Can you imagine how over the top the build up to Euro 2020 will be?

I thought this tournament was great, but if you are critical and looking at the team through the lens of potential winners, you’ve got a team who struggles to create chances in open play, scores mainly through set pieces and lost when they came up against decent opposition (Belgium & Croatia).

Southgate was also tactically a little inflexible. Why wasn’t there a tactical change after it was clear Croatia’s changes had given them the upper hand? I’m no expert but surely having two up front when you can’t control the midfield isn’t the best settup? I wonder if that’s why England were usually stronger in the first half; they lacked the adaptability in the second.

They got a great draw and that flattered them.


They were worlds apart from the constipated dross that was England in Euro 2016 and that’s a huge transition in just two years but they ain’t tournament winners in waiting (yet).

surrey_commuter

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

The worry is they got found out tactically in the second half by quite a few teams. Colombia were similar in that we had the better of the first, them the second, Sweden had all their clear chances in the second half when we dominated the first and while we may have had more possession still that is how Sweden play, I think if you replayed that half with the same chances more often than not we lose it, looking back to the group stages I've a feeling Tunisia were stronger in the second too.

I don't want to be too critical because you can't ignore those first half performances but it seemed to me Southgate wasn't willing to tweak it much and only ever made as much of a like for like substitution as possible, so Rashford for Sterling, Dier for Henderson. When a player clearly was having a mare, Young last night, he stayed on too long and again that looks like a failure to recognise when the plan A isn't working, I said to my other half on 30 minutes get Young off and Rose on, I said before they equalised that we need to put pressure on them to stop crosses coming in at will. Yes you change one thing you risk opening up elsewhere but as we were getting out played surely you are looking at your manager to try and change it. Seemed to me that we could have brought Dier on for Sterling to try and clamp down on Modric and co, put Kane right up top, and use the added security in midfield to get our wingbacks on the offensive and stop their fullback on the right getting forwards. We still had Ali and Lingard as fairly offensive players. I'm not an international manager getting paid millions though, I haven't been working with those players and thinking every hour about the options, I just refuse to believe the best option was cross your fingers and hope.

No doubt some will see this as incredibly critical but it's just discussing the game - I think Southgate was right when he said you are rarely as good as they say when you win and rately as bad as they say when you lose. Agree on Delph and WilshireI'd have liked the bald guy at Newcastle too he could have hit Sterling's runs far better than anyone we had on the pitch last night.

rolf_f

I'm just relieved that we don't have to deal with the post match brexity xenophobia from an England-France World Cup final irrespective of whether we won or lost it.

verylonglegs

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

The same point I was going to make. When a team gets on top of a game like Croatia did and takes control it is very difficult to counteract that momentum and turn it round. We didn’t have the kind of experienced player in the squad who can come on and do that, it’s just a limitation of who is available for selection right now and last night’s game and the outcome was a fair reflection of where they are as a team.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

The song was redone for 1998 too, what was the meaning then as I don't remember the 98 world cup being held in England?

The meaning then was 'here's a chance to make a few easy quid on the back of a fairly successful home tournament'

Whilst it was definitely about dreaming to win I always took the 'coming home' bit to refer to the game returning to its spiritual home rather than the trophy coming home. Talking of the Jules Rimet trophy when it was a European Championship makes little sense as well. I think we're in danger of over-analysing what was, in reality, just a money-spinning, basic but catchy pop tune though.

Pross

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

As a neutral I like Southgate but did feel he was reluctant to make changes. Whether that was because he didn't want to disrupt a winning team or because he felt the wider squad lacked strength I don't know. There were a few players by the end that appeared to be carrying injuries or were fatigued. There seems to be some promise there that the tournament will have helped deliver, the danger will be that the players will have the weight of expectation next time.

nickice

England will never learn. You had a decent run in a world cup helped by playing some OK sides. Then all the talk was about the final and beating Croatia was seen as a done deal. Now there will be too much pressure on the players in Euro 2020 and anything less than a semi final will be seen as a failure. This semi-final was a blip. England are a quarter-final team.

I wanted England to win but I can completely understand why other Scots don't support them.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

The worry is they got found out tactically in the second half by quite a few teams. Colombia were similar in that we had the better of the first, them the second, Sweden had all their clear chances in the second half when we dominated the first and while we may have had more possession still that is how Sweden play, I think if you replayed that half with the same chances more often than not we lose it, looking back to the group stages I've a feeling Tunisia were stronger in the second too.

I don't want to be too critical because you can't ignore those first half performances but it seemed to me Southgate wasn't willing to tweak it much and only ever made as much of a like for like substitution as possible, so Rashford for Sterling, Dier for Henderson. When a player clearly was having a mare, Young last night, he stayed on too long and again that looks like a failure to recognise when the plan A isn't working, I said to my other half on 30 minutes get Young off and Rose on, I said before they equalised that we need to put pressure on them to stop crosses coming in at will. Yes you change one thing you risk opening up elsewhere but as we were getting out played surely you are looking at your manager to try and change it. Seemed to me that we could have brought Dier on for Sterling to try and clamp down on Modric and co, put Kane right up top, and use the added security in midfield to get our wingbacks on the offensive and stop their fullback on the right getting forwards. We still had Ali and Lingard as fairly offensive players. I'm not an international manager getting paid millions though, I haven't been working with those players and thinking every hour about the options, I just refuse to believe the best option was cross your fingers and hope.

No doubt some will see this as incredibly critical but it's just discussing the game - I think Southgate was right when he said you are rarely as good as they say when you win and rately as bad as they say when you lose. Agree on Delph and WilshireI'd have liked the bald guy at Newcastle too he could have hit Sterling's runs far better than anyone we had on the pitch last night.

All good points but when he brought Dier on against Colombia we dropped too deep and it all went wrong until he moved Dier into defence. I am not sure swapping wing backs would have helped as we had been pushed back. I agree with you we needed to get them forwards but our players were not good enough to play out from the back so we were playing long and losing the ball before we could get them in the game.

I really don't think we could have changed anything that happened last night.

robert88

Given that wiki tells me Jules Rimet was French I guess there is still a chance that 'football', in the context of the World Cup, could 'come home'.

More than 2 to 1 on according to the betting!

dinyull

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Squad lacked quality and aided by an amazingly kind draw went about as far as could be expected. The idea this bunch of players are destined for greatness is bullshit but some of them could form the nucleus of a really good side if we get some talent coming through to join them. The lad at Man City (Foden?) looks to be destined for greatness and a few more from that successful England youth side could make a difference.

Southgate needs to learn from tonight, for all the praise heaped on him he was like a rabbit in the headlights against Croatia, they were so much on top for so long but his only response was a like for like change up front. It's a worry because he has no record to speak of as a club manager and part of the job is to react when things aren't going well. If it was France, Belgium or Brazil I might hold my hands up and say they have too much quality all over the pitch but Croatia had a mixed record in qualifying, they are excellent in places but not one to eleven, we let them play to their strengths and by the end could have no argument about the result.

Hard to disagree with much of that.

I said it early doors in this thread and I'll say it again: technically we are still miles away. I don't know if it's a mental thing, but so very often our first touch is appalling - even under no pressure. Easy 5 yard passes too end up neck high sometimes. The style of play in the Prem doesn't do us any favours @ international level.

Have to give Southgate credit for getting the team playing with a load of confidence though and taking the shackels off that Sven, Capello, Schteeve and Hodgson couldn't.

Stevo_666

Anyway, come on France...do us a favour and take the JCTs (Jammy Croatian T***s) down a peg

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’m no expert but surely having two up front when you can’t control the midfield isn’t the best settup?

Enlgand's problem for a number of years has been the complete lack of midfielders. England has an abundance of decent forwards, and Hodgson, for example, tried to simply play them out of position which really didn't work. Southgate tried to use wingbacks, but the problem remained that there was no quality in the middle. Furthermore, most players do not play in that formation for their clubs and most clubs have a selection of decent midfielders to support the attacking players.

Croatia on the other hand played liked an organised team. I think they marked zonally which nullified England's set pieces.

kingstongraham

First time since 1996 that we've actually been able to look forward to the next tournament. That'll do for me.

We lost to Iceland last time, and didn't win a single game the time before.

chris_bass

I'll admit I haven't read any of this so sorry if people have already mentioned basically everything I am about to say, but here is my take on it as a slight football fan but a sports fan generally.

England did ok, if you say they got to a World Cup semi final then it sounds a lot better than it really was in reality. if these were one off matches though it isn't great they only beat Sweden, Tunisia and Panama in 90 minutes. before the tournament would any of those have been celebrated as doing well? they scraped past Colombia on penalties, lost to Belgium (although that was a bit of a nothing match) and lost to an aging Croatia in extra time.

So getting to the semi final seems great but it says more about the other "big" teams than it does about England.

England are a team without a star player, they don't have someone who can change a game, Harry Kane will be top scorer but I think he played pretty terribly in the tournament. A couple of defenders and the goalkeeper where the stand out players in the team, defenders and goalkeepers help you not to lose but rarely make you win.

My guess is the media will hype the team up too much now due to the fact they reached the semi final and they won't meet those expectations and we'll have a similar period to the one we had post Euro '96.

TLDR?

England did ok, don't get carried away, they didn't beat anyone "good" and lost to a team they could and maybe should have beaten

Ben6899

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Seems a bit harsh to blame Southgate. To me he created a solid team from a group of limited players. Yes they got found out tactically (by a better team) but nobody has suggested how he should have changed in the second half. I would have taken Wilshire instead of Delph and brought him on for Sterling or Alli. That would have given us somebody who could step forwards with the ball. I know he has a dreadful injury record but he knew Delph was going to be unavailable.

They should have gone to 5-4-1 to keep Croatia's fullbacks pegged.

Ben6899

Chris Bass wrote:

IHarry Kane will be top scorer but I think he played pretty terribly in the tournament.

Honestly, as someone who's played defensive midfield and in the back four, Kane's performances are what you ask for from your centre forward.

He scored goals and held up balls into him extremely well - either drawing fouls or creating the next phase of play - which relieves pressure and allows the team to set once more.

It was pretty much textbook #9 play.

chris_bass

Ben6899 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

IHarry Kane will be top scorer but I think he played pretty terribly in the tournament.

Honestly, as someone who's played defensive midfield and in the back four, Kane's performances are what you ask for from your centre forward.

He scored goals and held up balls into him extremely well - either drawing fouls or creating the next phase of play - which relieves pressure and allows the team to set once more.

It was pretty much textbook #9 play.

I guess so but that isn't what is going to win you a game when you really need it.

verylonglegs

Chris Bass wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

IHarry Kane will be top scorer but I think he played pretty terribly in the tournament.

Honestly, as someone who's played defensive midfield and in the back four, Kane's performances are what you ask for from your centre forward.

He scored goals and held up balls into him extremely well - either drawing fouls or creating the next phase of play - which relieves pressure and allows the team to set once more.

It was pretty much textbook #9 play.

I guess so but that isn't what is going to win you a game when you really need it.

Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

robert88

Apparently

The England team is already in an excellent position for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

There will be a new theme tune for 'our boys'.

tailwindhome

Experience.

Modric has 4 champions league medals - that's more that everyone in the England team combined.

Fairly sure most/many of the English team last night have never won a major trophy.

Come back in 4 years. Hopefully see you there

FocusZing

Federer has won Wimbledon 8 times, it didn't stop him getting knocked out. If Croatia lost they would be saying he's too old.

Hindsight claptrap.

chris_bass

verylonglegs wrote:

Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

I wasn't saying that, obviously, but if you look at Ronaldo, Messi, Bale etc they can make a goal, make something happen or do something out of the ordinary to change a match.

Kane requires good people around him to make him his best, he is a great player don't get me wrong, but he needs good service which isn't always there with this England squad.

dinyull

Chris Bass wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

I wasn't saying that, obviously, but if you look at Ronaldo, Messi, Bale etc they can make a goal, make something happen or do something out of the ordinary to change a match.

Kane requires good people around him to make him his best, he is a great player don't get me wrong, but he needs good service which isn't always there with this England squad.

Given Messi's service and record this WC, probably not the best example. Especially compared to the (probably) golden boot winner.

We rely too much on Kane for goals, If Sterling had of scored that sitter against Panama I'm sure he'd have got a few more - you could see the lack of confidence in front of goal every time he broke through.

surrey_commuter

[*]

Chris Bass wrote:

verylonglegs wrote:

Scoring goals and keeping possession isn't going to win a game? So what is the alternative method of victory then?

I wasn't saying that, obviously, but if you look at Ronaldo, Messi, Bale etc they can make a goal, make something happen or do something out of the ordinary to change a match.

Kane requires good people around him to make him his best, he is a great player don't get me wrong, but he needs good service which isn't always there with this England squad.

Kane is a good player not a great player.

Inadvertently you end up arguing against yourself as your three examples are prime exhibits of it being a team game

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Kane is a good player not a great player.

Tough crowd.