should of been a win on paper but watching it it was a very lucky point, joe hart did deliver last night but at the euros was poor, a point could be the point that wins the group.
I think gone are the days of 'on paper' we are better etc. I truly believe we are probably equals to the likes of Slovenia these days. we struggle to beat these teams.
Patently not true. Engalnd will win the group, of that there is little doubt.
We didn't beat Iceland. We drew with Slovakia at the Euros, just scrapped a 1-0 win in the group, and drew last night. Let's not kid ourselves.
We may well win the group, but the huff and the puff of how shit we look and unable to break down these sides highlights how far we've fallen. To me, we are now about equal with them or marginally better.
They'll always be awful Groups though because they're created based on seedings and how teams have done in past tournaments / qualifying.
i.e. You cant have Wales / Portugal / France / Germany / England in one Group because for World Cup Qualification only one of those sides would go to the World Cup whilst second place might go into the Play-Offs...
In addition it means that the World Cup is missing some top sides whilst it'll mean the "boring" teams like Slovenia and Slovakia will go to the World Cup meaning the actual Tournament isn't exciting and for that reason I'd much prefer boring Qualifiers over a month of 32 awful sides playing in the Tournament
If anything we need to change our approach to Friendly Matches.
Every few years we play the same bunch: Spain | France | Portugal | Belgium | Netherlands | Brazil | Germany | Italy... Because its a friendly against them its usually a boring match, no one (fans / players) care about the result and usually we win.
What do we learn...? - Nothing, other than the fact that we can beat teams who'll attack us and leave gaps... Excellent as that'll amount for barely any of the International sides out there.
Instead the FA should forget about simply making more money and should mix it up a bit, every other friendly we should be playing against the likes of Iceland / Slovenia / Slovakia etc. learn to break down these sides that sit behind the ball
If anything we need to change our approach to Friendly Matches.
Every few years we play the same bunch: Spain | France | Portugal | Belgium | Netherlands | Brazil | Germany | Italy... Because its a friendly against them its usually a boring match, no one (fans / players) care about the result and usually we win.
What do we learn...? - Nothing, other than the fact that we can beat teams who'll attack us and leave gaps... Excellent as that'll amount for barely any of the International sides out there.
Instead the FA should forget about simply making more money and should mix it up a bit, every other friendly we should be playing against the likes of Iceland / Slovenia / Slovakia etc. learn to break down these sides that sit behind the ball
A friendly against Iceland is a good idea,
Both that they "deserve" the match at Wembley (which wasn't meant to sound patronising), but the game would have a bit of spice. England would need to win, to get some sort of "revenge", while Iceland would want to beat England again, to rub it in. They'd give a real test to us, can we break down a team with real team spirit and organisation
If you look at all the chances Slovenia had nearly all were from our mistakes. And what is with this ritual of the new manager digging out the old manager? Southgate played near enough the same farking team the twonk!!
If anything we need to change our approach to Friendly Matches.
Every few years we play the same bunch: Spain | France | Portugal | Belgium | Netherlands | Brazil | Germany | Italy... Because its a friendly against them its usually a boring match, no one (fans / players) care about the result and usually we win.
What do we learn...? - Nothing, other than the fact that we can beat teams who'll attack us and leave gaps... Excellent as that'll amount for barely any of the International sides out there.
Instead the FA should forget about simply making more money and should mix it up a bit, every other friendly we should be playing against the likes of Iceland / Slovenia / Slovakia etc. learn to break down these sides that sit behind the ball
A friendly against Iceland is a good idea,
Both that they "deserve" the match at Wembley (which wasn't meant to sound patronising), but the game would have a bit of spice. England would need to win, to get some sort of "revenge", while Iceland would want to beat England again, to rub it in. They'd give a real test to us, can we break down a team with real team spirit and organisation
Would be as pointless as all the other friendlies. We get results in friendlies and qualifiers but play the same teams in a tournament when it actually means something and other teams up their game whilst we bottle it. Our players are technically not consistent enough and more importantly are mentally weak.
the referee was a disgrace .. let the Slovenians get away with some terrible tackles yet quick to book the English .. German scweinhund .. keep the minnow Euro client states happy
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
We all used the "they get everyone behind the ball, wait 'til we play someone better" defence, but i think that was mainly out of just needing an explanation other than "we're shite". At the end of the day we couldn't defend against the few times we were attacked so unlikely we would have defended better against more attacks. On thinking about it afterwards, there has been nothing in the previous tournaments to suggest we would have faired any better against more open attacking teams. We are failures at tournaments, it's as simple as that.
I said to my wife that it's like watching Charlton during the game! Passing across the back 4 but no cut and thrust in midfield, plus nobody to pick a pass.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
This.
Portugal who drew with Austria, Iceland Hungary and Poland?
The amount of people I've met just from doing England away is crazy, the togetherness is brilliant. It really is, in the words of David Brent, a melting pot, for all English club fans.
Intereting how many people I've met and when they have found out I'm a Charlton fan they always talk immediately about our owners and how sad it is etc etc, and also how much respect they have for the protestors, nice to know we are getting a lot of people's attention and they stand with us in solidarity. In fact a part of me looks forward to telling people who I support just because of the reaction and the respect that we get because we are fighting against a regime.
As for the match it was shite! But been a great two days overall and Ljubljana is a lovely, lovely city throughly enjoyed it.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
England were extremely lucky to get three points against Wales
They'll always be awful Groups though because they're created based on seedings and how teams have done in past tournaments / qualifying.
i.e. You cant have Wales / Portugal / France / Germany / England in one Group because for World Cup Qualification only one of those sides would go to the World Cup whilst second place might go into the Play-Offs...
In addition it means that the World Cup is missing some top sides whilst it'll mean the "boring" teams like Slovenia and Slovakia will go to the World Cup meaning the actual Tournament isn't exciting and for that reason I'd much prefer boring Qualifiers over a month of 32 awful sides playing in the Tournament
This is true but there are some stronger groups. France for example have Holland and Sweden in their group, Spain have italy, Croatia have Turkey and Ukraine. All much tougher than ours 'on paper'. Yes we're top seeds as we always do well in qualifying but the time will come when we don't get quite so lucky with our group and then we'll tumble down the seedings.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
England were extremely lucky to get three points against Wales
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
England were extremely lucky to get three points against Wales
Wales were lucky to get 3 points against N Ireland...
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
England were extremely lucky to get three points against Wales
Wales were lucky to get 3 points against N Ireland...
They didnt get three points against Northern Ireland...
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
A great post. The thing is, if you're England, you know this is how teams are going to play against you. I think that. at international level at least, it's easier to coach a team to defend with 11 behind the ball than it is to coach breaking sides down. But still, you wonder if England work on the attacking side of tactics. It's something Jurgen Low has been known to do with Germany, coach attacking moves and positioning--more akin to what club managers would do. I know Hodgson did some of that with Fulham, but by the looks of his England team either he didn't do it, didn't do it well, or did it and they forgot (or a combination thereof).
Also, in looking at the side England put out on Tuesday, there are a lot of players who really rely on the pace and openness of the Premier League, namely Walcott, Alli, Henderson, Dier and the fullbacks. After the first ten minutes of the first half, you would see England players in possession in the middle third take 2-3 touches, then pick their head up, and everyone around them would be static. What movement there was was often 20 yards away from the ball. What resulted was a slow sideways ball.
I'm not against possession for possessions' sake, I think Spain have been a great example over the last ~10 years of "defending with the ball," meaning that if you don't give the opposition the ball you defend well. Mourinho has also talked about "resting with the ball" being the best way to rest in football. But this was just a complete confusion as to what to do. And the players without the ball looked just as confused. I thought Dier was woeful, although Henderson took up a lot of the positions where he'd normally like to receive the ball. And the players further up the pitch, namely Alli, Walcott, and Lingard, seemed clueless as to how to help their team build from the back.
The good news is it's 18+ months until the next major tournament.
In all four games of the Euros we played teams that put 11 men behind the ball. While I wouldn't defend these overpaid prima donnas, I'd be keen to know how we would've fared against a team that attacked us. Especially if we'd kept the 11 together that beat Germany a few months earlier.
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
England were extremely lucky to get three points against Wales
a) Did you eat any horse?
b) Did you sing "Goodbye Horse" before eating it?
No To both questions
And I didn't inject Horse either for the avoidance of any doubt
Comments
We may well win the group, but the huff and the puff of how shit we look and unable to break down these sides highlights how far we've fallen. To me, we are now about equal with them or marginally better.
i.e. You cant have Wales / Portugal / France / Germany / England in one Group because for World Cup Qualification only one of those sides would go to the World Cup whilst second place might go into the Play-Offs...
In addition it means that the World Cup is missing some top sides whilst it'll mean the "boring" teams like Slovenia and Slovakia will go to the World Cup meaning the actual Tournament isn't exciting and for that reason I'd much prefer boring Qualifiers over a month of 32 awful sides playing in the Tournament
They'll be up for it, but are a truly terrible team at the moment
Every few years we play the same bunch: Spain | France | Portugal | Belgium | Netherlands | Brazil | Germany | Italy... Because its a friendly against them its usually a boring match, no one (fans / players) care about the result and usually we win.
What do we learn...? - Nothing, other than the fact that we can beat teams who'll attack us and leave gaps... Excellent as that'll amount for barely any of the International sides out there.
Instead the FA should forget about simply making more money and should mix it up a bit, every other friendly we should be playing against the likes of Iceland / Slovenia / Slovakia etc. learn to break down these sides that sit behind the ball
Both that they "deserve" the match at Wembley (which wasn't meant to sound patronising), but the game would have a bit of spice. England would need to win, to get some sort of "revenge", while Iceland would want to beat England again, to rub it in. They'd give a real test to us, can we break down a team with real team spirit and organisation
Russia were incredibly lucky to get a point, and one could argue that had a knock-on effect that we are still paying for today. That's not to say we wouldn't have been humiliated in some other way, but I truly don't think we are even with Slovakia or Malta. We're just not as good as Portugal, Germany and so on when it come to putting those teams away convincingly.
The amount of people I've met just from doing England away is crazy, the togetherness is brilliant. It really is, in the words of David Brent, a melting pot, for all English club fans.
Intereting how many people I've met and when they have found out I'm a Charlton fan they always talk immediately about our owners and how sad it is etc etc, and also how much respect they have for the protestors, nice to know we are getting a lot of people's attention and they stand with us in solidarity. In fact a part of me looks forward to telling people who I support just because of the reaction and the respect that we get because we are fighting against a regime.
As for the match it was shite! But been a great two days overall and Ljubljana is a lovely, lovely city throughly enjoyed it.
b) Did you sing "Goodbye Horse" before eating it?
Also, in looking at the side England put out on Tuesday, there are a lot of players who really rely on the pace and openness of the Premier League, namely Walcott, Alli, Henderson, Dier and the fullbacks. After the first ten minutes of the first half, you would see England players in possession in the middle third take 2-3 touches, then pick their head up, and everyone around them would be static. What movement there was was often 20 yards away from the ball. What resulted was a slow sideways ball.
I'm not against possession for possessions' sake, I think Spain have been a great example over the last ~10 years of "defending with the ball," meaning that if you don't give the opposition the ball you defend well. Mourinho has also talked about "resting with the ball" being the best way to rest in football. But this was just a complete confusion as to what to do. And the players without the ball looked just as confused. I thought Dier was woeful, although Henderson took up a lot of the positions where he'd normally like to receive the ball. And the players further up the pitch, namely Alli, Walcott, and Lingard, seemed clueless as to how to help their team build from the back.
The good news is it's 18+ months until the next major tournament.
And I didn't inject Horse either for the avoidance of any doubt