The actual I am watching the World Cup thread. No, non World Cup watchers please. Spoilers.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

I'm happy to live in the fantasy that the US are a bad match up for England. They are a young fit team, press hard and are pretty niggly to play against. Will be the exception rather than the rule in international football.

My fear is that Wales, who have been the footballing equivalent of the vegetable aisle so far, will be like other UK teams and be reborn when they play England.

England v Scotland in the Euros was just as bad.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

I'm happy to live in the fantasy that the US are a bad match up for England. They are a young fit team, press hard and are pretty niggly to play against. Will be the exception rather than the rule in international football.

My fear is that Wales, who have been the footballing equivalent of the vegetable aisle so far, will be like other UK teams and be reborn when they play England.

The reverse happened in Euro 2016, England raised their game and got a lucky win before scraping second in the group and getting eliminated by the mighty Iceland as a result.

secretsqirrel

Wales winning 4-0 next Tuesday is the stuff of dreams only, sadly.
The best case scenario is a very hard battle, where Wales go home with their head held high, with a few ‘bl**dy refs, and if onlys’ and leave the gift for England go forward battle hardened. As the most casual of soccer viewers, I get the feeling that England are a bit entitled and naive.

Weirdly, every time I see Harry Kane on the box (happens a lot), I see Chris Robshaw’s face…..

kingstongraham

I just want to see Foden play football.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

I just want to see Foden play football.

Seems to be either him or mount. Who was poor yesterday.

I reckon Foden must have made a joke about Southgate's nose at some point, and that's why he's always on the bench.

tailwindhome

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

I'm tired, and it's been a long week, so excuse me if the maths is dodgy

England qualify with anything better than a 3-0 loss to Wales?

3-0 also sees them through. 4-0 they're out unless the other match is a draw, in which case they need to lose 7-0 to go out unless it's a 3-3 (or more) draw in which case 6-0.

How does 3-0 see them through? Goals scored?

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

I'm tired, and it's been a long week, so excuse me if the maths is dodgy

England qualify with anything better than a 3-0 loss to Wales?

3-0 also sees them through. 4-0 they're out unless the other match is a draw, in which case they need to lose 7-0 to go out unless it's a 3-3 (or more) draw in which case 6-0.

How does 3-0 see them through? Goals scored?

Yes.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

England were bad, but they were set up in a manner that doesn't suit them which amplified things.

Southgate is a pragmatist and obviously felt this was a tougher game, he played it safe and didn't want to lose.

They were obviously instructed not to press, he sat them deep to protect Stones and Maguire's lack pace and marked the space rather than go man to man with a press.

The problem then is you can't turnover possesion quickly and play through gaps which is where we are strong. When you do get the ball, USA are all in position and our players were static and not taking the ball on the half turn which leads to this ponderous side to side, and backwards passing.

Southgate isn't daft and won't play like this every game, but we have to accept, he is conservative in approach and believes in 'game management'.

As per Foden vs Mount. It's a bit of a false comparison. Southgate sees Mount as a central player and Foden wide. Foden is actually in competition with Sako and Rashford. For whatever reason (I suspect it is direct running and pace), he prefers them to Foden.

kingstongraham

I don't think he likes players to try and run with the ball.

DeVlaeminck

Does Southgate actually think Foden is a wide player or has he just been so reluctant to drop Mount that's the only place he has been able to fit him in ? If it's the former I'd have to question the assertion that Southgate isn't daft. If we go with a back 5 it wouldn't surprise me if he plays Mount wide in a front 3 before Foden.

For me the problem with Southgate's approach is it lets opponents dominate possession and given lots of the ball high up the pitch good players create chances especially against our defence which isn't bad but isn't the strongest part of the team. We saw this letting Croatia come on to us in the World Cup. He's lauded for reaching the final in the Euros but historically a major nation (basing that claim on the players we have and the clubs they play for) in what was effectively a home tournament wins it about 50% of the time. He clearly has some strengths as a manager but he seems poor tactically - see last night and his inability to change it as a prime example. I just think he sits there not knowing what to do and the easiest thing is shore it up and hope we don't concede.

skyblueamateur

DeVlaeminck said:

Does Southgate actually think Foden is a wide player or has he just been so reluctant to drop Mount that's the only place he has been able to fit him in ? If it's the former I'd have to question the assertion that Southgate isn't daft. If we go with a back 5 it wouldn't surprise me if he plays Mount wide in a front 3 before Foden.

For me the problem with Southgate's approach is it lets opponents dominate possession and given lots of the ball high up the pitch good players create chances especially against our defence which isn't bad but isn't the strongest part of the team. We saw this letting Croatia come on to us in the World Cup. He's lauded for reaching the final in the Euros but historically a major nation (basing that claim on the players we have and the clubs they play for) in what was effectively a home tournament wins it about 50% of the time. He clearly has some strengths as a manager but he seems poor tactically - see last night and his inability to change it as a prime example. I just think he sits there not knowing what to do and the easiest thing is shore it up and hope we don't concede.

Terry Venables is lauded for his time as England manager but didn’t make the final in a home tournament. Think they got absolute pelters after the Switzerland draw and then should have been beaten by Spain in the Quarters.

England fans and the media are in my opinion a huge reason why they haven’t won anything since 66. Fickle as anything.

Basically qualified for the second round. Enjoy it 👍

Pross

secretsqirrel said:

Wales winning 4-0 next Tuesday is the stuff of dreams only, sadly.
The best case scenario is a very hard battle, where Wales go home with their head held high, with a few ‘bl**dy refs, and if onlys’ and leave the gift for England go forward battle hardened. As the most casual of soccer viewers, I get the feeling that England are a bit entitled and naive.

Weirdly, every time I see Harry Kane on the box (happens a lot), I see Chris Robshaw’s face…..

Wales don’t have to win by 4 though do they? Any win and the other game to be a draw is what they need as they’d have the same points and better GD than Iran so England and Wales would go through. Winning by 4 would give them a chance of topping the group if the other game was a draw.

tailwindhome

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

kingstongraham said:

tailwindhome said:

I'm tired, and it's been a long week, so excuse me if the maths is dodgy

England qualify with anything better than a 3-0 loss to Wales?

3-0 also sees them through. 4-0 they're out unless the other match is a draw, in which case they need to lose 7-0 to go out unless it's a 3-3 (or more) draw in which case 6-0.

How does 3-0 see them through? Goals scored?

Yes.

Wales beating England 3-0 but going out due to the other results and 'goals scored' would be a very Welsh way to go out

Nailed on, I'd say

orraloon

Is moneyball a sport or some form of performance art?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63766703

Diving = genius. Aye, right.

skyblueamateur

Enjoying the Poland v Saudi Arabia game.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

secretsqirrel said:

Wales winning 4-0 next Tuesday is the stuff of dreams only, sadly.
The best case scenario is a very hard battle, where Wales go home with their head held high, with a few ‘bl**dy refs, and if onlys’ and leave the gift for England go forward battle hardened. As the most casual of soccer viewers, I get the feeling that England are a bit entitled and naive.

Weirdly, every time I see Harry Kane on the box (happens a lot), I see Chris Robshaw’s face…..

Wales don’t have to win by 4 though do they? Any win and the other game to be a draw is what they need as they’d have the same points and better GD than Iran so England and Wales would go through. Winning by 4 would give them a chance of topping the group if the other game was a draw.

Wales need to win 4-0 if there's a result in the other match.

If the other match is a draw, Wales just need a win.

secretsqirrel

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

secretsqirrel said:

Wales winning 4-0 next Tuesday is the stuff of dreams only, sadly.
The best case scenario is a very hard battle, where Wales go home with their head held high, with a few ‘bl**dy refs, and if onlys’ and leave the gift for England go forward battle hardened. As the most casual of soccer viewers, I get the feeling that England are a bit entitled and naive.

Weirdly, every time I see Harry Kane on the box (happens a lot), I see Chris Robshaw’s face…..

Wales don’t have to win by 4 though do they? Any win and the other game to be a draw is what they need as they’d have the same points and better GD than Iran so England and Wales would go through. Winning by 4 would give them a chance of topping the group if the other game was a draw.

Wales need to win 4-0 if there's a result in the other match.

If the other match is a draw, Wales just need a win.

Thanks, cheered me up, I think 🤔

😁 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

secretsqirrel said:

Wales winning 4-0 next Tuesday is the stuff of dreams only, sadly.
The best case scenario is a very hard battle, where Wales go home with their head held high, with a few ‘bl**dy refs, and if onlys’ and leave the gift for England go forward battle hardened. As the most casual of soccer viewers, I get the feeling that England are a bit entitled and naive.

Weirdly, every time I see Harry Kane on the box (happens a lot), I see Chris Robshaw’s face…..

Wales don’t have to win by 4 though do they? Any win and the other game to be a draw is what they need as they’d have the same points and better GD than Iran so England and Wales would go through. Winning by 4 would give them a chance of topping the group if the other game was a draw.

Wales need to win 4-0 if there's a result in the other match.

If the other match is a draw, Wales just need a win.

Yep, it would then be Wales and whoever won that match going through.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

surrey_commuter

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Dorset_Boy

Maybe Southgate put the Grealish calves calendar together.
Agree Grealish is a show pony better suited to the springboard competition in the pool.

MidlandsGrimpeur2

Not sure on Kane, injury wise. He looked poor in the euro group games last year and then found some spark in the knockouts.

He looked fine against Iran though, so maybe it was the foot injury.

Wilson would have been a good call for Kane yesterday, quick, lots of energy and good movement. I think the USA would have found him tricky to handle.

surrey_commuter

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

Not sure on Kane, injury wise. He looked poor in the euro group games last year and then found some spark in the knockouts.

He looked fine against Iran though, so maybe it was the foot injury.

Wilson would have been a good call for Kane yesterday, quick, lots of energy and good movement. I think the USA would have found him tricky to handle.

Kane reminded me of old school FA Cup Finals when the star player was picked despite carrying an injury and then remained on the pitch due to a lack of subs.

Huge ask for Wilson after only 5 games and not scoring at this level in 4 years. As I said Southgate has left himself no Plan B.

DeVlaeminck

skyblueamateur said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Does Southgate actually think Foden is a wide player or has he just been so reluctant to drop Mount that's the only place he has been able to fit him in ? If it's the former I'd have to question the assertion that Southgate isn't daft. If we go with a back 5 it wouldn't surprise me if he plays Mount wide in a front 3 before Foden.

For me the problem with Southgate's approach is it lets opponents dominate possession and given lots of the ball high up the pitch good players create chances especially against our defence which isn't bad but isn't the strongest part of the team. We saw this letting Croatia come on to us in the World Cup. He's lauded for reaching the final in the Euros but historically a major nation (basing that claim on the players we have and the clubs they play for) in what was effectively a home tournament wins it about 50% of the time. He clearly has some strengths as a manager but he seems poor tactically - see last night and his inability to change it as a prime example. I just think he sits there not knowing what to do and the easiest thing is shore it up and hope we don't concede.

Terry Venables is lauded for his time as England manager but didn’t make the final in a home tournament. Think they got absolute pelters after the Switzerland draw and then should have been beaten by Spain in the Quarters.

England fans and the media are in my opinion a huge reason why they haven’t won anything since 66. Fickle as anything.

Basically qualified for the second round. Enjoy it 👍

Disagree the fans are fickle or to blame they aren't kicking the ball or picking the team.

Disagree Venables got pelters during the tournament.

Yes Spain were unlucky just as England were unlucky in the semi. Venables had one shot -he had taken a club job because the FA hadn't extended his contract - bit of a contrast with the current manager. Of course though Euro 96 was a missed opportunity.

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Grealish holds the ball in high positions better than Sterling, Rashford or Saka he gives possession away less than them too. What he doesn't offer is the same goal threat but in some recent Man City games Grealish has been their best player. I wouldn't object to Grealish left, Foden right, Maddison behind and a number 9 who plays as a 9. Swings and roundabouts - you can make the case for Sterling, Saka or Rashford too depending on how we want to play.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Grealish holds the ball in high positions better than Sterling, Rashford or Saka he gives possession away less than them too. What he doesn't offer is the same goal threat but in some recent Man City games Grealish has been their best player. I wouldn't object to Grealish left, Foden right, Maddison behind and a number 9 who plays as a 9. Swings and roundabouts - you can make the case for Sterling, Saka or Rashford too depending on how we want to play.

I think Foxes is a very good player and we should find out how good he is without de Bruyne.

If I was the opposition I would leave Grealish open so he dominated possession and did nothing with it.

Sterling can not shoot or cross and has no understanding of football. It baffles me that pundits say he has had a disappointing season at Chelsea when all he has done is lived down to expectations

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Grealish holds the ball in high positions better than Sterling, Rashford or Saka he gives possession away less than them too. What he doesn't offer is the same goal threat but in some recent Man City games Grealish has been their best player. I wouldn't object to Grealish left, Foden right, Maddison behind and a number 9 who plays as a 9. Swings and roundabouts - you can make the case for Sterling, Saka or Rashford too depending on how we want to play.

The amount of possession Grealish has is the problem, slowing the pace of the game with little attacking threat and drawing fouls in non-threatening areas. Might be ok if you’re defending a lead but not for trying to win a game.

surrey_commuter

seanoconn said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Grealish holds the ball in high positions better than Sterling, Rashford or Saka he gives possession away less than them too. What he doesn't offer is the same goal threat but in some recent Man City games Grealish has been their best player. I wouldn't object to Grealish left, Foden right, Maddison behind and a number 9 who plays as a 9. Swings and roundabouts - you can make the case for Sterling, Saka or Rashford too depending on how we want to play.

The amount of possession Grealish has is the problem, slowing the pace of the game with little attacking threat and drawing fouls in non-threatening areas. Might be ok if you’re defending a lead but not for trying to win a game.

He should have stayed at Villa and been a hero

seanoconn

As for the Foden debate, he’s obviously not shining/gelling on the training pitch at the moment.

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

seanoconn said:

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

No idea on the Southgate Foden vs Mount issue. I suspect he does think he is a wide player. Grealish is the direct replacement for Mount hence why he always subs him for Jack.

Completely agree on the defensive nature, against both Croatia and Italy we were attacking and on top and the risk averse side of him kicked in and tried to protect the lead.

I don't think he doesn't know what to do or how to change things. He chooses not to, he feels he is making the right decisions and sticks to them. Like I said, he is conservative in approach and feels keeping it tight and taking the result on offer in light of this (a draw in last night's case) is the best approach.

He will also have an eye on the tournament as a whole. They got a good win first game, he wanted to protect their position and not lose yesterday. He will see the group stage as something to be navigated and play each game accordingly, rather than just attack and go all out every game.

I think he has snookered himself as he has no alternative to Kane and he looked unfit/injured.

Grealish is a show pony with no end product with no defensive discipline (even Sterling is better) so it beggars belief that anybody could prefer him to Foden.

Grealish holds the ball in high positions better than Sterling, Rashford or Saka he gives possession away less than them too. What he doesn't offer is the same goal threat but in some recent Man City games Grealish has been their best player. I wouldn't object to Grealish left, Foden right, Maddison behind and a number 9 who plays as a 9. Swings and roundabouts - you can make the case for Sterling, Saka or Rashford too depending on how we want to play.

The amount of possession Grealish has is the problem, slowing the pace of the game with little attacking threat and drawing fouls in non-threatening areas. Might be ok if you’re defending a lead but not for trying to win a game.

He should have stayed at Villa and been a hero

For me Grealish has been consistently pretty good for England. The evidence from the other night when he came on suggests he does draw fouls in dangerous areas and does create big chances - the backheel to (I think) Foden being one.

His running with the ball drags opposition players about and creates space for others - sometimes slowing it down allows team mates to get up in support notably Kane who spends so much time in deep positions.