World Cup 2018 thread

[Premier ram]

14 hours ago, McLovin said:

 Sterling did all the dogged work for the likes of Kane, Alli and Lingard to play in my opinion. His performances have been brilliant, it’s just his finishing that let him down.

I think we looked a bit clueless up front when Sterling came off. Vida and Lovren were terrified of sterling’s pace

totally agree mate , thought sterling going off made croatia more confident and throw caution to the wind

[Alph]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Your opinion became completely irrelevant the moment Mandzukic scored! ?

I thought I'd got away with that!! 

He is nearly useless though isn't he? I knew I shouldn't have posted that!!

[Alph]

Way too much made of the "easy route"

Spain were knocked out by Russia. Germany didn't get out the group. Italy missed their flight. 

I suppose if we'd played Germany instead of Sweden then that would be the "hard route". But because they couldn't get out of a group including Sweden, South Korea and Mexico then the the rest of the world had a lucky escape. 

What they needed to do was reinstate Spain after their defeat to Russia so then Croatia would have to make the semi final by beating a proper team. I bet Spain lost on purpose because they didn't understand the rules after cruising through the group stages against Morocco, Iran and Portugal...

[Jourdan]

9 hours ago, 1of4 said:

If Kane had scored his one and only chance it may not have counted as the linesman flaged for off-side. If after a VAR review it would have counted, that, we'll never know.

We may have been a team but we weren't a well balanced side. We were lacking a midfield that could keep the ball when needed. A midfield that could close down the oppositions midfield, to stop the ball getting into our box so often. A midfield that could win the ball and use it effectively to attack. We were supposed to have a team with an abundance of pace. How many times did we threaten the Croatian goal with the use of pace? Answer None.

As for the golden generation, yes they failed time and time again but lets not let us mask the fact that this present team are not any better because we managed to reach a semi-final and winning on penalties for the first time after hanging on for a draw with Colombia. The only good performance we produced was against Sweden.

We are a work in progress and we are still finding that balance. The regular starting XI have played together in five competitive games in total. This was a lesson for the players and also a lesson for the manager.

How many teams have looked well balanced in this competition? How many teams, with far greater experience and pedigree in their ranks compared to us, have ticked those boxes? France and that's it. That is why they are in the final.

With all the major teams, there have been glaring weaknesses. Spain lacked end product. Germany lacked pace and mobility. Brazil lacked defensive discipline. Argentina lacked quality and cohesion in defence and midfield. We outperformed all of those teams in the first major tournament for many of these players. We too have our weaknesses but this is the time where the coach reflects and addresses those ahead of the next tournament. 

Being so near and yet so far from success, I understand the disappointment is great but I think you are not giving the coach and the players enough credit here.

For the majority of our team, this was their first World Cup and their first taste of high stakes, top level international football and they should be commended for achieving what the golden generation were unable to do in multiple attempts, irrespective of the opposition.

The time for forensic criticism should be in 2020 and 2022 when this group of players are further along in their development and the coach has had many campaigns to put a real stamp on this team.

[Bris Vegas]

I don't see how England outperformed Brazil, for instance. Yeah we got further, but virtue of an easier route. Brazil in the tournament played far better football than England did, as did several other sides, and they beat better teams than we did.

They were really unlucky to lose Belgium. That can happen in tournament football.

I think France, Belgium and Brazil have been the best three teams at the World Cup.

 

 

[Jourdan]

11 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I don't see how England outperformed Brazil, for instance. Yeah we got further, but virtue of an easier route. Brazil in the tournament played far better football than England did, as did several other sides, and they beat better teams than we did.

They were really unlucky to lose Belgium. That can happen in tournament football.

I think France, Belgium and Brazil have been the best three teams at the World Cup.

 

 

How can you say Brazil have been one of the best three teams in the tournament? For all of their individual quality and talent, they have been such a disappointment and made hard work of many games that they should have breezed through.

Relative to their talent pool and their potential, I don't think Brazil played well at all. They have been probably one of the more functional and boring Brazil sides to watch - not a distinguished performance to speak of, given the depth of talent. They have players on the bench who could make it into our first eleven.

Relative to expectations, of course England have outperformed Brazil. Many expected Brazil to reach the last four at minimum. Many expected quarter finals at best for England.

I think England would have beaten Brazil, had they crossed paths.

[Brammie Steve]

I may be in a minority but I feel better about losing a fair match in 120 minutes than if we'd been hacked to bits for 120 minutes then our fifth penalty taker launches the ball into the seventh row and lose that way.

There had to be a loser last night and there'll be one on Sunday!

If that had been us would anyone say we were failures?

Probably, if this site is Owt to go on!

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

I don't see how England outperformed Brazil, for instance. Yeah we got further, but virtue of an easier route. Brazil in the tournament played far better football than England did, as did several other sides, and they beat better teams than we did.

They were really unlucky to lose Belgium. That can happen in tournament football.

I think France, Belgium and Brazil have been the best three teams at the World Cup.

 

 

Brazil were outplayed by Belgium in the first half. They came back but didnt get the goals. Unlike Croatia who likewise were out played in the first half against England. We will see if Croatia have anything left in the tank against France. 

[PistoldPete2]

32 minutes ago, steve brummie said:

I may be in a minority but I feel better about losing a fair match in 120 minutes than if we'd been hacked to bits for 120 minutes then our fifth penalty taker launches the ball into the seventh row and lose that way.

There had to be a loser last night and there'll be one on Sunday!

If that had been us would anyone say we were failures?

Probably, if this site is Owt to go on!

I agree, doenst seem quite as bad as losing to the argies in 86 or 98 , Germany in 1990 or Portugal in 2006. 

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

We are a work in progress and we are still finding that balance. The regular starting XI have played together in five competitive games in total. This was a lesson for the players and also a lesson for the manager.

How many teams have looked well balanced in this competition? How many teams, with far greater experience and pedigree in their ranks compared to us, have ticked those boxes? France and that's it. That is why they are in the final.

With all the major teams, there have been glaring weaknesses. Spain lacked end product. Germany lacked pace and mobility. Brazil lacked defensive discipline. Argentina lacked quality and cohesion in defence and midfield. We outperformed all of those teams in the first major tournament for many of these players. We too have our weaknesses but this is the time where the coach reflects and addresses those ahead of the next tournament. 

Being so near and yet so far from success, I understand the disappointment is great but I think you are not giving the coach and the players enough credit here.

For the majority of our team, this was their first World Cup and their first taste of high stakes, top level international football and they should be commended for achieving what the golden generation were unable to do in multiple attempts, irrespective of the opposition.

The time for forensic criticism should be in 2020 and 2022 when this group of players are further along in their development and the coach has had many campaigns to put a real stamp on this team.

Agreed, expectations will be higher, not too high I hope.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

20 hours ago, Andicis said:

Clearly we do. What is the point in competing in the euros or the world cup if you're not playing to win? Quarters or semis, that isn't enough. We should either play to win, or just not bother. Don't know why you're proud of a team who was as much as a failure as the 2014 side etc, the only team we should be proud of was the 1966 team who actually won it. The Germans don't come in to lose. The Brazilians don't either. So why do we? 

Iceland failed miserably in Euro 2016 because they didn’t win then did they? Try and tell that to @ramit.

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete2 said:

Brazil were outplayed by Belgium in the first half. They came back but didnt get the goals. Unlike Croatia who likewise were out played in the first half against England. We will see if Croatia have anything left in the tank against France. 

I don’t agree that Brazil were outplayed, even in the first half.

Fine margins. Brazil hit the post moments before scoring an unlucky own goal.

Belgium then scored a brilliant goal on the counter, but after that it was all Brazil.

They had 27 shots in total. They were extremely unlucky to lose that with Courtois in immense form and the forwards not finishing off their chances. Brazil also had a clear penalty not given, perhaps justice for Neymar’s diving.

But on the whole Brazil were really unlucky. They dominated every game they played, and playing the same way against Belgium they would win 7 or 8 times out of 10.

[Phoenix]

8 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Nouse about using energy and pacing themselves. Whether or not croatia's stamina was normal, we see England teams time and again look unbeatable in the first half hour fade badly in later stages of games. Its because we don't have a winter break! There's too many teams in the premier league! England as a team need to learn about controlling the pace of a match for 90 minutes.

Some interesting points there. I used to run marathons and it is said that for every minute you gain on your schedule in the first half, you lose two in the second (through fatigue). England went at it pretty hard first half, and paid the price later on. Vice versa Croatia (negative splits).

The other point, a considerable number of the players for teams in the later stages of the competition also play in the Premier League, so they don't get a winter break either. However, pacing yourself will always pay off.

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 hour ago, Phoenix said:

Some interesting points there. I used to run marathons and it is said that for every minute you gain on your schedule in the first half, you lose two in the second (through fatigue). England went at it pretty hard first half, and paid the price later on. Vice versa Croatia (negative splits).

The other point, a considerable number of the players for teams in the later stages of the competition also play in the Premier League, so they don't get a winter break either. However, pacing yourself will always pay off.

Exactly. It's one of those things that always used to irritate me when tournaments and England were discussed.

[MuespachRam]

I’ve just renwatched the whole game again... in the cold light of day...

we should have put the game to bed in the first half

the second half we were as bad as Croatia were in the first

we looked totally dead on our feet

there were at least 4 bookings the red missed

we were beaten by a better, more experienced team who were just a bit more intelligent with their game plan

but having said all rhat

we will never ever have a better opportunity than that to get to a World Cup Final, never ever..... dang it. 

[Mafiabob]

[Bris Vegas]

The MSN have made some pretty drastic lifestyle changes since their World Cup exit.

 

 

[Sexydadbod]

I don’t agree with a lot of the chatter going around that we should have a parade for the England players, fortunately Southgate has come out and said he doesn’t want a parade but whether his opinion is considered remains to be seen. Parades should only be done for winning trophies or winning promotion etc.

A lot of the players will probably just want some rest and go on holiday before the new season

[Alph]

1 hour ago, McLovin said:

I don’t agree with a lot of the chatter going around that we should have a parade for the England players, fortunately Southgate has come out and said he doesn’t want a parade but whether his opinion is considered remains to be seen. Parades should only be done for winning trophies or winning promotion etc.

A lot of the players will probably just want some rest and go on holiday before the new season

Why not just leave it and most the players will be given a little cheer at a few grounds around the country. And in the street they'll get some love too.

The reason this England team has won people over is because they've got their heads down and got on with it. 

Parading themselves through the streets without a trophy would undo some of what they've  done. 

[LittleEatonRam]

For all the talk of how this England team is a huge improvement, it's amazing how the same old failings are there.

We came up against a team who were technically better, and fell short again. Croatia came into the match off the back of a gruelling tie with Russia and still looked like they had more energy than us. I remember Chris Waddle saying after one of our other recent eliminations that International football is different to Premier League football because you have to play with patience, and he was right.

We approach every game in the same way: out of the traps quickly, run around frantically as if we're playing Sunderland and they'll just be overwhelmed. Then, as the game wears on, the opposition get stronger because they have paced themselves and are able to keep hold of the ball. Against Premier League opposition the ball changes hands so often that if you give it away you'll get it back within 2 mins. When you're playing a well drilled International team like Croatia you have to spend long periods without it, and that takes concentration. That's why we were knackered, just like when we lost to Italy at the 2012 Euros and Pirlo ran the show.

Vrsaljko put it best in a post match interview: 'The all-round perception was that this is a new-look England who have changed their ways of punting long balls up field but when we pressed them it turned out that they haven't.'

We had 6 shots on target from open play in 10 hours of football at this WC. The same number as Saudi Arabia. You can't expect to win a competition through set pieces.

Southgate was also proven to be tactically naive when faced with a manager who knew what he was doing. Both Colombia and Croatia changed their systems mid game and he had no answer.

Apart from a slick PR charm offensive off the field I don't really see any reason to buy into the idea of this being a new dawn.  I'm not being so churlish as to suggest that we shouldn't regard a semi final as an improvement - of course it should be - but let's not get carried away.