The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 2]
Discussion
I do find it frustrating that Sterling has had a pretty decent season for city, yet when he plays for England he looks like he's never played football in his life. This also effects a few other England players as well, its fascinating and I guess its the pressure of playing for your country.
cerb4.5lee said:
I do find it frustrating that Sterling has had a pretty decent season for city, yet when he plays for England he looks like he's never played football in his life. This also effects a few other England players as well, its fascinating and I guess its the pressure of playing for your country.
He does play with much better technical players at City. His positional play is fantastic, he's just not an accomplished finisher in front of goal, which isn't what you want in the games that count. Cobnapint said:
Yes. VAR needs to stay, they just need to tell the refs not to be scared to make a decision. I think the fear of being made to look a plinker is probably holding them back (well it it did this guy. f
k sake.).
I don't understand why they didn't go with the proven rugby model? The ref is in charge and can ask for a review if he needs more info to make a decision. Works great in rugby.k sake.).Having the var being the one taking the initiative and reaching out to the ref just means the ref takes less ownership and waits to be told stuff, so either pays less attention or second guesses themselves if they don't get a call.
Previous England teams would have achieved a draw. This team is different.
Alli stayed on too long and sterling was a waste of time. Rashford far better. Loftus cheek gave a new dimension and very effective.
Maguire was decent but who the hell rates Walker? Just as nonchalant as Glen Johnson but a better sprinter.
Alli stayed on too long and sterling was a waste of time. Rashford far better. Loftus cheek gave a new dimension and very effective.
Maguire was decent but who the hell rates Walker? Just as nonchalant as Glen Johnson but a better sprinter.
hilly10 said:
VAR is total bks. Two certain penalties questions should be asked.
I just cannot understand where VAR is going. After the Tunisia penalty I thought ‘this is ridiculous, every game is going to have 5, 6 or more penalties’ (I thought it was soft..., more of the attacker running into Walker’s arm than intent on the latter’s part). Then there was the ‘miss’ of the 2 obvious fouls on Kane which contradicted this first viewpoint. If every penalty area situation / contact is going to be reviewed in microscopic detail it will get farcical, but what are the parameters on what is ‘reviewable’? As mentioned maybe the cricket / tennis system of limited reviews per team per game has some merit? It is going to be interesting if the number of penalties increases in these Finals, there seems to have been several in the games so far.ks. Two certain penalties questions should be asked. For those saying "scrap VAR, let the ref decide"........I disagree. The system is supposed to be an assistant to the ref, so that it picks up any glaring errors he has made. The ref tonight was incompetent, and missed two obvious penalties. What is needed is more VAR intervention, not less. You need a system that forces the ref to review crucial errors. Either allow the VAR observers to stop the game, or follow cricket's example, and give the aggrieved team the chance to demand a review. If they fail, they lose their review. If successful, they keep it.
Plus, VAR can prove, for all to see, that a given ref is incompetent - and maybe bent, who knows? Tonight's ref, and linesmen, should be on the next plane home, with VAR the proof of their wretched performance.
Plus, VAR can prove, for all to see, that a given ref is incompetent - and maybe bent, who knows? Tonight's ref, and linesmen, should be on the next plane home, with VAR the proof of their wretched performance.
Jockman said:
Previous England teams would have achieved a draw. This team is different.
Alli stayed on too long and sterling was a waste of time. Rashford far better. Loftus cheek gave a new dimension and very effective.
Maguire was decent but who the hell rates Walker? Just as nonchalant as Glen Johnson but a better sprinter.
Excellent summing up ... good word that exactly describes Walker ... he cost us that Iceland equaliser in 2016 cos he was half-asleep ...Alli stayed on too long and sterling was a waste of time. Rashford far better. Loftus cheek gave a new dimension and very effective.
Maguire was decent but who the hell rates Walker? Just as nonchalant as Glen Johnson but a better sprinter.
Rashford has to start instead of Sterling, he was great in the pre cup friendlies, and when he came on he looked capable of taking the ball into the box and beating his man/drawing a foul.
Dele or Lingard not too fussed if either gets swapped out for Loftus Cheek or Wellbeck (trying to put my club bias aside and trying things against Panama before things get serious is OK by me)..
Young was OK but there were 3 opportunities that stood out for me where a left footed player could have played a better cross, give Rose a chance against Panama then see if it's better before we meet Belgium.
Dele or Lingard not too fussed if either gets swapped out for Loftus Cheek or Wellbeck (trying to put my club bias aside and trying things against Panama before things get serious is OK by me)..
Young was OK but there were 3 opportunities that stood out for me where a left footed player could have played a better cross, give Rose a chance against Panama then see if it's better before we meet Belgium.
RaymondVanDerDon said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I do find it frustrating that Sterling has had a pretty decent season for city, yet when he plays for England he looks like he's never played football in his life. This also effects a few other England players as well, its fascinating and I guess its the pressure of playing for your country.
He does play with much better technical players at City. His positional play is fantastic, he's just not an accomplished finisher in front of goal, which isn't what you want in the games that count. 
I'd also put Sterling on the bench.
I have some sympathy with the view of playing Alli and Kane together and keeping Lingard on (who I thought looked dangerous, albeit not on target). Alli was kept on too long with a niggle.
I think Walker's out of position and doesn't fit with this formation. Alexander-Arnold in for him?
I'm not sure about Maguire. Ponderous (though involved in the 2nd goal). I'd have Rose in his place I think, at least to start. Probably Cahill for Young.
The team looked good in the first 10-15mins. Positive, attacking football. Their heads went down after the penalty and then it was, mostly, same old England. Devoid of ideas - OK, the Tunisians locked the game out but a good side would unpick that.
Set pieces look OK but tbh any half decent side wouldn't be giving Kane 3yds in the box as he was for both goals. So to think we have that licked is not a good idea.
A win's a win. Will be interesting to see how we do against Panama vv Belgium. Not the worst England performance I've seen, and pretty good for glimpses. We'll see...but there won't be better opportunities to mix it up a bit in this tournament.
Alpinestars said:
All a bit negative in here. Best team in Africa, showed how good they are in the warm up games, probably only had one chance to score, we should have scored 3 or 4 in the first half, other big teams have shown that it’s not easy to win.
Oh, and we rarely win World Cup games.
Good start.
Warm up games count for nothing. Half the time players are going through the motions and not wanting to get injured. Oh, and we rarely win World Cup games.
Good start.
Tunisia were absolutely awful. They could barely pass the ball and were defensively shocking. Look how often the ball was floated into the box and an England player was left in yards of space. It's inexcusably bad.
The seeding system has always been a joke. I've no idea how they are 14th seeds. They've not exactly got a history of beating quality opposition.
They qualified by winning their group by one point over DR Congo. Libya and Guinea made up the rest of their group. Not exactly top quality opposition and only 4 teams in the group.
I can't work out how they are rated the best African team. They were knocked out in the African Nations Cup in the first knockout stage by Burkina Faso last year.
When I read their main striker couldn't cut the grade at Sunderland it made me wonder. Watching them tonight they were every bit that bad.
England should have killed the game in the first half. The sloppy finishing was awful. The second half was concerning as England just tensed up and didn't look anywhere near as confident.
Scraping past a team as bad as Tunisia with an injury time winner isn't that positive.
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 19th June 01:41
Edited by Driver101 on Tuesday 19th June 10:10
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff