The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 3]
Discussion
Metal Guru said:
Kane has got to go until he gets some form back. It’s like playing with 10 men.
We’ll qualify no problem, he’ll get a hat trick against San Marino and Southgate will proclaim him the worlds best striker again.
Then it’s back to square one in Qatar.
Also is there any point to Grealish other than falling over and “winning” free kicks.? What’s the point in getting a free kick anyway.? England just pass it backwards to shuffle around the back four before giving it to Grealish to repeat the whole process.
Kane is certainly nowhere near his best, though even then he is better than the alternatives, who for England have all been sWe’ll qualify no problem, he’ll get a hat trick against San Marino and Southgate will proclaim him the worlds best striker again.
Then it’s back to square one in Qatar.
Also is there any point to Grealish other than falling over and “winning” free kicks.? What’s the point in getting a free kick anyway.? England just pass it backwards to shuffle around the back four before giving it to Grealish to repeat the whole process.
Edited by Metal Guru on Wednesday 13th October 07:56
te. Kane puts the ball away usually, wins free kicks and pens, and smashes home the latter. I remember the years of England missing pens, and want someone who can actually score them in the side.
Blackpuddin said:
Henderson looked way off the pace, his attempts at Hollywood through balls were laughable. Credit to Hungary though, they beat us at our own pressing game.
Yes. Dreadful. I'll say this for Henderson, he does try. Full marks for commitment. I don't think he's a great player tbh though. Doesn't boss the midfield and his distribution is weak. Ntv said:
Kane is certainly nowhere near his best, though even then he is better than the alternatives, who for England have all been ste.
Kane puts the ball away usually, wins free kicks and pens, and smashes home the latter. I remember the years of England missing pens, and want someone who can actually score them in the side.
I don't think having a half-hearted player so many miles off his best is any good whatsoever from a team perspective. No matter how many goals he's scored in the past.te. Kane puts the ball away usually, wins free kicks and pens, and smashes home the latter. I remember the years of England missing pens, and want someone who can actually score them in the side.
It was one of those nights where four or five players were off the pace for some reason. Well, actually one reason is that they are in poor club form, or not playing for their clubs regularly; that applies to Kane and Sterling - the latter in particular was like the Sterling of old, i.e. hopeless with zero end product.
That makes the decision to take off Grealish - comfortably our best player on the night - rather than Sterling, mystifying. Surely replacing Sterling with Saka, or Sancho, and leaving Grealish on the left was the correct call. I'd have done it at half time, personally.
Then there's Kane. There seems no half measures with him; he's either really good or a complete donkey. But who do you replace him with? Calvert-Lewin (if fit), Abraham, Watkins or Bamford? None of them fill me with confidence. I think we just have to hope that Kane regains his mojo, because he's miles off the pace at present. I suppose Rashford and/or Greenwood will come into contention.
Ah well, we got a point. Another one (or more) against Albania, with a guaranteed 3 points against San Marino to finish, will see us over the line, which I fully expect to happen, and a lot may change before November 21st next year.
That makes the decision to take off Grealish - comfortably our best player on the night - rather than Sterling, mystifying. Surely replacing Sterling with Saka, or Sancho, and leaving Grealish on the left was the correct call. I'd have done it at half time, personally.
Then there's Kane. There seems no half measures with him; he's either really good or a complete donkey. But who do you replace him with? Calvert-Lewin (if fit), Abraham, Watkins or Bamford? None of them fill me with confidence. I think we just have to hope that Kane regains his mojo, because he's miles off the pace at present. I suppose Rashford and/or Greenwood will come into contention.
Ah well, we got a point. Another one (or more) against Albania, with a guaranteed 3 points against San Marino to finish, will see us over the line, which I fully expect to happen, and a lot may change before November 21st next year.
Brave Fart said:
It was one of those nights where four or five players were off the pace for some reason. Well, actually one reason is that they are in poor club form, or not playing for their clubs regularly; that applies to Kane and Sterling - the latter in particular was like the Sterling of old, i.e. hopeless with zero end product.
That makes the decision to take off Grealish - comfortably our best player on the night - rather than Sterling, mystifying. Surely replacing Sterling with Saka, or Sancho, and leaving Grealish on the left was the correct call. I'd have done it at half time, personally.
Then there's Kane. There seems no half measures with him; he's either really good or a complete donkey. But who do you replace him with? Calvert-Lewin (if fit), Abraham, Watkins or Bamford? None of them fill me with confidence. I think we just have to hope that Kane regains his mojo, because he's miles off the pace at present. I suppose Rashford and/or Greenwood will come into contention.
Ah well, we got a point. Another one (or more) against Albania, with a guaranteed 3 points against San Marino to finish, will see us over the line, which I fully expect to happen, and a lot may change before November 21st next year
.
I agree on the Kane comment, he does look off it for the moment. I would have given Watkins more minutes last night, and brought him on instead of Tammy. Completely different player and offers us a different threat going forward. That makes the decision to take off Grealish - comfortably our best player on the night - rather than Sterling, mystifying. Surely replacing Sterling with Saka, or Sancho, and leaving Grealish on the left was the correct call. I'd have done it at half time, personally.
Then there's Kane. There seems no half measures with him; he's either really good or a complete donkey. But who do you replace him with? Calvert-Lewin (if fit), Abraham, Watkins or Bamford? None of them fill me with confidence. I think we just have to hope that Kane regains his mojo, because he's miles off the pace at present. I suppose Rashford and/or Greenwood will come into contention.
Ah well, we got a point. Another one (or more) against Albania, with a guaranteed 3 points against San Marino to finish, will see us over the line, which I fully expect to happen, and a lot may change before November 21st next year
.
Grealish defiantly was a threat last night and odd why he was subbed. Not seen how he is going for City at the moment, but all the commentators seem to say is he is great at winning free kicks. That's all well and good, but surely you want him to do a bit more than get the ball and fall over?
One concern was us playing Rice on his own and so many attacking players, offered little of no cover at times. Hungary created a few good chances, and moved the ball very well at times. I would even say their passing and movement was much better than Englands at times.
Challo said:
I agree on the Kane comment, he does look off it for the moment. I would have given Watkins more minutes last night, and brought him on instead of Tammy. Completely different player and offers us a different threat going forward.
Grealish defiantly was a threat last night and odd why he was subbed. Not seen how he is going for City at the moment, but all the commentators seem to say is he is great at winning free kicks. That's all well and good, but surely you want him to do a bit more than get the ball and fall over?
One concern was us playing Rice on his own and so many attacking players, offered little of no cover at times. Hungary created a few good chances, and moved the ball very well at times. I would even say their passing and movement was much better than Englands at times.
Bear in mind that we scored our goal from a free kick won by Grealish. But you're right, getting fouled shouldn't be our main tactic, unless it's in the penalty area I suppose.Grealish defiantly was a threat last night and odd why he was subbed. Not seen how he is going for City at the moment, but all the commentators seem to say is he is great at winning free kicks. That's all well and good, but surely you want him to do a bit more than get the ball and fall over?
One concern was us playing Rice on his own and so many attacking players, offered little of no cover at times. Hungary created a few good chances, and moved the ball very well at times. I would even say their passing and movement was much better than Englands at times.
I also think Southgate's decision to experiment was ill-timed; it was a bit of an insult to Hungary, really. Perhaps that made them more motivated. They were unrecognisable from the team we beat 4-0 in Budapest. In fact I think we were a shade fortunate to get a point.
Still, any sort of decent result against the mighty Albania, and we're home and hosed, IMHO.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff