The Official England Thread-The Team We All Support [Vol 3]
Discussion
48k said:
XCP said:
As a casual observer of football I thought the opposing players had to be 10 metres away when a free kick was taken. There seemed to be numerous occasions when this was not the case in this game.
Yards not metres, but yes.XCP said:
48k said:
XCP said:
As a casual observer of football I thought the opposing players had to be 10 metres away when a free kick was taken. There seemed to be numerous occasions when this was not the case in this game.
Yards not metres, but yes.
TEKNOPUG said:
Rooney has 46 non-pens from 120 games = 0.38 goals per game
Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
Did you read the guardian article last week about all these goalscoring records ? In a nutshell it’s easier to score nowadays hence why so many records being broken and why the gap between the best and worst teams is the widest it has been .Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
franki68 said:
Did you read the guardian article last week about all these goalscoring records ? In a nutshell it’s easier to score nowadays hence why so many records being broken and why the gap between the best and worst teams is the widest it has been .
Interesting, as I thought teams are much closer nowadays? I remember England beating Turkey 5-0, and it was expected. Nowadays even smaller Eastern European teams are not cannon fodder, you would happily take a 1-0 against some of them at their place. franki68 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Rooney has 46 non-pens from 120 games = 0.38 goals per game
Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
Did you read the guardian article last week about all these goalscoring records ? In a nutshell it’s easier to score nowadays hence why so many records being broken and why the gap between the best and worst teams is the widest it has been .Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
Dixie Dean said:
Hold my beer...
coldel said:
Interesting, as I thought teams are much closer nowadays? I remember England beating Turkey 5-0, and it was expected. Nowadays even smaller Eastern European teams are not cannon fodder, you would happily take a 1-0 against some of them at their place.
It was more about domestic football but much of it still applies ,it’s easier for forwards to score .coldel said:
I was going to say Jimmy Greaves was the goal to game king of England. What a record he had.
I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
He shared 9 matches with Emile Heskey, not sure the big lad took too many shots away from Shearer. I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
MontyPythonX said:
Hants PHer said:
What annoys me is why Southgate picks players who aren't playing for their club sides - Maguire and Phillips especially. The former did his usual "give the ball away then charge after it, ending up out of position" act, which cost us a goal, and the latter was woefully off the pace IMO.
And then leaves them on for the full 90minutes when they're obviously out on their feet! Despite being bossed for the entire second half, it took him 25minutes to make a single substitution.
Still, we got there in the end, and a win against Ukraine on Sunday would mean we're very likely to qualify for Germany next year, since I can't see us having too much trouble against North Macedonia nor Malta.
coldel said:
I was going to say Jimmy Greaves was the goal to game king of England. What a record he had.
I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
Lot more to Harry's game than just being a striker. He drops deep to become a playmaker for both Spurs and England.I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
Am I wrong in thinking that the Ref had a plan , book England players early to put pressure on later in the game and hopefully give 2nd yellow/ red card . One of our bookings for time wasting was at a free kick even though an Italian player hadn't moved 5 yards let alone the required 10 .
The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest , the injury to the England player that led to protests about the play not being stopped flustered the ref who reacted by throwing cards to save his embarrassment.
He certainly missed a lot of the professional fouls and the gamesmanship from both teams .
Italy were pretty poor last night which would give false hope to many English fans ,leading to huge disappointment when they reach the stage of playing competent teams .
Several English players didn't make a forward pass all game ,the current system of passing back and forth in defence until the goalkeeper launches it upfield always ultimately ends in disaster.
The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest , the injury to the England player that led to protests about the play not being stopped flustered the ref who reacted by throwing cards to save his embarrassment.
He certainly missed a lot of the professional fouls and the gamesmanship from both teams .
Italy were pretty poor last night which would give false hope to many English fans ,leading to huge disappointment when they reach the stage of playing competent teams .
Several English players didn't make a forward pass all game ,the current system of passing back and forth in defence until the goalkeeper launches it upfield always ultimately ends in disaster.
grumpy52 said:
Am I wrong in thinking that the Ref had a plan , book England players early to put pressure on later in the game and hopefully give 2nd yellow/ red card . One of our bookings for time wasting was at a free kick even though an Italian player hadn't moved 5 yards let alone the required 10 .
The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
He doesn't consider the pen anyway beyond his initial decision, that's the var's job. He never gave the pen, for which I don't blame him, as I never spotted it in real time. Afaik, that's the end of it, unless var gets involved. It's then the job of the var to ask the ref to pause play, as they think he might have missed something. The var might have been influenced by the protest, but the ref gives his decision and he doesn't ask for a review. Var decided they thought it was a pen, so asked the ref to look again at the monitor, as the ref makes the final decision. He reviewed it, and decided his initial decision was wrong. The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
Put your tinfoil hat away. I didn't think the ref was great, but I don't think he was biased.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
grumpy52 said:
Am I wrong in thinking that the Ref had a plan , book England players early to put pressure on later in the game and hopefully give 2nd yellow/ red card . One of our bookings for time wasting was at a free kick even though an Italian player hadn't moved 5 yards let alone the required 10 .
The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
He doesn't consider the pen anyway beyond his initial decision, that's the var's job. He never gave the pen, for which I don't blame him, as I never spotted it in real time. Afaik, that's the end of it, unless var gets involved. It's then the job of the var to ask the ref to pause play, as they think he might have missed something. The var might have been influenced by the protest, but the ref gives his decision and he doesn't ask for a review. Var decided they thought it was a pen, so asked the ref to look again at the monitor, as the ref makes the final decision. He reviewed it, and decided his initial decision was wrong. The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
Put your tinfoil hat away. I didn't think the ref was great, but I don't think he was biased.
I thought the referee was fine. I was impressed how quickly he clamped down on things like time wasting.
272BHP said:
Lot more to Harry's game than just being a striker. He drops deep to become a playmaker for both Spurs and England.
I actually think this can be detrimental in more cases than its a positive. Quite a few times for England there are balls in the box and Harry isn't there. Last night Saka held the ball up well in the second half before flashing a great ball across the 6 yard box, would have been a tap in for any striker, where was Harry, stood 5 yards outside the penalty area despite having plenty of time to get in there. Our one and only striker in the team shouldn't be deep and trying to be a playmaker, he should be leaving that to the midfielders. Thats where we expect Saka/Grealish/Bellingham to be creating.
272BHP said:
coldel said:
I was going to say Jimmy Greaves was the goal to game king of England. What a record he had.
I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
Lot more to Harry's game than just being a striker. He drops deep to become a playmaker for both Spurs and England.I think you also have to consider the changing game, Kane plays as the lone striker, lots of stuff fed into just him.
Shearer was often sharing the goals with another striker as a front pairing.
I would still say Shearer as an out and out goal scorer is a better player than Kane.
coldel said:
272BHP said:
Lot more to Harry's game than just being a striker. He drops deep to become a playmaker for both Spurs and England.
I actually think this can be detrimental in more cases than its a positive. Quite a few times for England there are balls in the box and Harry isn't there. Last night Saka held the ball up well in the second half before flashing a great ball across the 6 yard box, would have been a tap in for any striker, where was Harry, stood 5 yards outside the penalty area despite having plenty of time to get in there. Our one and only striker in the team shouldn't be deep and trying to be a playmaker, he should be leaving that to the midfielders. Thats where we expect Saka/Grealish/Bellingham to be creating.
Driver101 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
grumpy52 said:
Am I wrong in thinking that the Ref had a plan , book England players early to put pressure on later in the game and hopefully give 2nd yellow/ red card . One of our bookings for time wasting was at a free kick even though an Italian player hadn't moved 5 yards let alone the required 10 .
The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
He doesn't consider the pen anyway beyond his initial decision, that's the var's job. He never gave the pen, for which I don't blame him, as I never spotted it in real time. Afaik, that's the end of it, unless var gets involved. It's then the job of the var to ask the ref to pause play, as they think he might have missed something. The var might have been influenced by the protest, but the ref gives his decision and he doesn't ask for a review. Var decided they thought it was a pen, so asked the ref to look again at the monitor, as the ref makes the final decision. He reviewed it, and decided his initial decision was wrong. The ref certainly wasn't equal and unbiased. He certainly wouldn't have considered the penalty without the mass England protest ,
Put your tinfoil hat away. I didn't think the ref was great, but I don't think he was biased.
I thought the referee was fine. I was impressed how quickly he clamped down on things like time wasting.
TEKNOPUG said:
Rooney has 46 non-pens from 120 games = 0.38 goals per game
Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
Also Rooney scored 30% of his goals in friendlies, where Kane has only scored 11% in friendlies. Are friendlies automatically easier? Who knows. Kane has 36 non-pens from 81 games = 0.44 goals per game
So Kane would have 53 non-pen goals if he played the 120 games that Rooney had (who only scored 46).
Mind you, Greaves scored at a rate of 0.77 per game. So he'd have had 92 in the time Rooney took to score 46....
Maffs eh?
Regardless Kane's record will stand for a long time, in spite of all the people calling him a cheat. In fact he's such a good cheat that all the top flight professional referees don't notice it and penalise him, he's world class in more than one respect!
cerb4.5lee said:
I think that Kane is an amazing goal scorer, but he is a natural born cheat/dirty player though for me, but with him being that way it has made him very successful though to be fair. He has always had a great way of conning the refs, and that helps the team get opportunities with free kicks etc in fairness.
Agree, although I'd word it differently. I think he has no qualms about playing the game the way it is naturally (unfortunately) evolving.Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff