World Cup 2018 thread

[MuespachRam]

17 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said:

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.

If you don’t think that this was a better performance that any of the other tournaments since you have been alive then you are indeed living in a fantasy land. 

[LittleEatonRam]

9 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

If you don’t think that this was a better performance that any of the other tournaments since you have been alive then you are indeed living in a fantasy land. 

Great point-by-point rebuttal there.

We scored a lot of goals from set pieces, which masked deficiencies elsewhere. If we hadn't been so good at corners you wouldn't be saying the performances were so much better.

[MuespachRam]

27 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said:

Great point-by-point rebuttal there.

We scored a lot of goals from set pieces, which masked deficiencies elsewhere. If we hadn't been so good at corners you wouldn't be saying the performances were so much better.

Why does it matter where we scored the goals from? We weren't given the corners for nothing, any of the other teams that were in the competition could have practiced corners and got really good at them. Isn't a goal from a corner worth as much as a goal from open play? Do you think Gary Lineker wasn't as good as a striker as Phil Gee because he only scored tap ins? All goals are equal, if they are smashed in from 50 yards, tapped in from 2 or headed in from a corner.

In Italia 90 (the World Cup that everyone talks about being the benchmark for England) we drew against Ireland, drew against Holland, just beat Egypt 1-0 (with a free kick), beat Belgium in the last minute of extra time(with a free kick) and then scrapped past Cameroon with 2 penalties.......

Goals are goals and if we had only scored goals from corners all the way through the competition and won it then I think we would all be happy with that..?

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

If you don’t think that this was a better performance that any of the other tournaments since you have been alive then you are indeed living in a fantasy land. 

We were better at the 2002 WC. Beat Argentina, beat Denmark 3-0, lost to an excellent Brazil side without embarassing ourselves.

Pretty good for a team containing Danny Mills and Emile Heskey.

Right now England have far better options all over the pitch, yet we still look average and struggle to create in open play.

I know goals scored from penalties, corners and free-kicks are worth the same as a Barca-esque 50-pass team goal. 

But you can’t rely on set-pieces if you really want to win a tournament. At some point you will come up against a decent side and you will need to control the midfield. In my lifetime, everytime we’ve played a decent team, we’ve been overrun in the 2nd half and technically inferior.

In all our games against the likes of Brazil 02, France and Portugal 04, Portugal 06, Germany 2010, Italy 2012 and Croatia 2018 we’ve generally matched the opposition for 45 minutes. Then the 2nd half and beyond we just come under constant pressure, ultimately losing the game.

 

[LittleEatonRam]

34 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Why does it matter where we scored the goals from? We weren't given the corners for nothing, any of the other teams that were in the competition could have practiced corners and got really good at them. Isn't a goal from a corner worth as much as a goal from open play? Do you think Gary Lineker wasn't as good as a striker as Phil Gee because he only scored tap ins? All goals are equal, if they are smashed in from 50 yards, tapped in from 2 or headed in from a corner.

In Italia 90 (the World Cup that everyone talks about being the benchmark for England) we drew against Ireland, drew against Holland, just beat Egypt 1-0 (with a free kick), beat Belgium in the last minute of extra time(with a free kick) and then scrapped past Cameroon with 2 penalties.......

Goals are goals and if we had only scored goals from corners all the way through the competition and won it then I think we would all be happy with that..?

But we didn't win it just through set pieces, did we? That's sort of my point. Nobody is suggesting goals from corners are worth less. Of course they aren't. I'm just saying it makes us very one dimensional. The corners didn't cut it against Croatia, and we didn't have anything else to offer.

I agree completely about Italia 90 though. That's anothet example of a team/tournament that has been romanticised despite the fact that we won only one game in normal time, and that was against Egypt.

[Alph]

We created chances in open play.

[PistoldPete2]

8 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

We were better at the 2002 WC. Beat Argentina, beat Denmark 3-0, lost to an excellent Brazil side without embarassing ourselves.

Pretty good for a team containing Danny Mills and Emile Heskey.

Right now England have far better options all over the pitch, yet we still look average and struggle to create in open play.

I know goals scored from penalties, corners and free-kicks are worth the same as a Barca-esque 50-pass team goal. 

But you can’t rely on set-pieces if you really want to win a tournament. At some point you will come up against a decent side and you will need to control the midfield. In my lifetime, everytime we’ve played a decent team, we’ve been overrun in the 2nd half and technically inferior.

In all our games against the likes of Brazil 02, France and Portugal 04, Portugal 06, Germany 2010, Italy 2012 and Croatia 2018 we’ve generally matched the opposition for 45 minutes. Then the 2nd half and beyond we just come under constant pressure, ultimately losing the game.

 

Yes agreed in 2002 and in 2006 I actually believed we could win the World Cup but we lost to Brazil in 2002 and injuries, Rooney sending off cost us dear in 2006.

The problem in 2018 semi final as you say was the 2nd half (and the extra time).  The high energy of the opening 45 minutes could not be sustained by the players who started.  There wasnt enough quality on the bench to add fresh legs or to make telling tactical changes. Where England can improve on that is bring in still more young players especially in areas where we are weak.. left back Sessegnon if hes ready  and  a playmaker like Foden or Hughes so that we are better at keeping posession and the players dont tire so easliy. Better options up front too as we clearly rely too much on Kane who was a spent force on wednesday. All these options would allow Southgate to manage games a bit better than he was able to on Wednesday.  

[GB SPORTS]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

We were better at the 2002 WC. Beat Argentina, beat Denmark 3-0, lost to an excellent Brazil side without embarassing ourselves.

Pretty good for a team containing Danny Mills and Emile Heskey.

Right now England have far better options all over the pitch, yet we still look average and struggle to create in open play.

I know goals scored from penalties, corners and free-kicks are worth the same as a Barca-esque 50-pass team goal. 

But you can’t rely on set-pieces if you really want to win a tournament. At some point you will come up against a decent side and you will need to control the midfield. In my lifetime, everytime we’ve played a decent team, we’ve been overrun in the 2nd half and technically inferior.

In all our games against the likes of Brazil 02, France and Portugal 04, Portugal 06, Germany 2010, Italy 2012 and Croatia 2018 we’ve generally matched the opposition for 45 minutes. Then the 2nd half and beyond we just come under constant pressure, ultimately losing the game.

 

I think the last bit of your first line loses the argument Bris., We couldn't beat 10 man Brazil. Also the quality of this world Cup is far better than 2002.

[Rev]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

We were better at the 2002 WC. Beat Argentina, beat Denmark 3-0, lost to an excellent Brazil side without embarassing ourselves.

Pretty good for a team containing Danny Mills and Emile Heskey.

Right now England have far better options all over the pitch, yet we still look average and struggle to create in open play.

I know goals scored from penalties, corners and free-kicks are worth the same as a Barca-esque 50-pass team goal. 

But you can’t rely on set-pieces if you really want to win a tournament. At some point you will come up against a decent side and you will need to control the midfield. In my lifetime, everytime we’ve played a decent team, we’ve been overrun in the 2nd half and technically inferior.

In all our games against the likes of Brazil 02, France and Portugal 04, Portugal 06, Germany 2010, Italy 2012 and Croatia 2018 we’ve generally matched the opposition for 45 minutes. Then the 2nd half and beyond we just come under constant pressure, ultimately losing the game.

 

But as a building block towards future success, given the inexperience of both manager and players, surely you can see signs of progress?

If this becomes the highwater mark of English football for the next 20 yrs, then you'll have a point, but I think we went into this World Cup hoping to establish a base camp, only to find we've pitched our tents ready for the final ascent.

 

[Alph]

Just now, reveldevil said:

But as a building block towards future success, given the inexperience of both manager and players, surely you can see signs of progress?

If this becomes the highwater mark of English football for the next 20 yrs, then you'll have a point, but I think we went into this World Cup hoping to establish a base camp, only to find we've pitched our tents ready for the final ascent.

 

Exactly this.

[68 Guns]

On 12/07/2018 at 06:30, Paul71 said:

You had better keep out the matchday thread when the season kicks off. About an hour before kick off someone always posts the team.

Not a waste of a post at all maybe some people want to discuss the lineups.

When you talk about a waste of a post maybe re read yours. Bigger waste of a post in my opinion.

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

[LittleEatonRam]

1 minute ago, Charlie Dram said:

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

What is your big gripe about people posting the team? Maybe they're just posting it so that it's easily visible for people wanting to discuss it. Sometimes it's also the first look some people get at the team sheets.

Either way it's mean spirited and small to complain about it.

[Day]

2 hours ago, Alpha said:

We created chances in open play.

Were they expected goals though? Thats what is important, no good sitting here and telling us about chances created if the computer says you was expected to score more or less. 

[Alph]

2 minutes ago, David said:

Were they expected goals though? Thats what is important, no good sitting here and telling us about chances created if the computer says you was expected to score more or less. 

I'm not sure whether Sterling going through on a 1v1, England breaking on a 3v3, Lingard and Kane on the penalty spot screaming for a simple pull back, Rashford and Kane on 1v1 counts as expected goals. But it seems to not count as creativity and that's why our set pieces (the best in the tournament by miles) are seen as a bad thing. 

[68 Guns]

28 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said:

What is your big gripe about people posting the team? Maybe they're just posting it so that it's easily visible for people wanting to discuss it. Sometimes it's also the first look some people get at the team sheets.

Either way it's mean spirited and small to complain about it.

Mean spirited? Small? 

If you're on here when England are about to play then I wonder why. 

England team revealed on a DCFC site???

Sorry. 

Not mean or small. 

Just dont get it. 

What web thing will you be on to find the team on Aug 3rd?

Bet it wont be the FA site

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Charlie Dram said:

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

I

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Charlie Dram said:

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

Can post

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Charlie Dram said:

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

What I want. 

[TigerTedd]

See. There’s no limit, therefore no ‘wasted posts’. 

And for the record, I normally find out the team on the match day thread, and enjoy the discussion it starts. In fact, at the end of a Saturday, if I’ve been working through the match, I’ll rewind the thread from the point the first person posts the team, and catch up from there. 

What would be a waste of time would be adding ‘discuss’ to the end of a team sheet. You post the team, it’s inplied that it will be discussed. 

[Sith Happens]

9 hours ago, Charlie Dram said:

Then maybe post 'this is the team'.What are your thoughts? That could lead to a discussion.

As its a discussion forum, its erm, like sort of implied you know.