European Championship

[Orm]

Anyone else thought that England attacked to much in the middle?

And I was surprised that so many of the English players looked afraid to run into the penalty box. Seriously, just one guy there when the passing attempt is made. Ridiculous. That is almost as bad as Sweden.

Is it because they are afraid for counters that they do not run the extra ten yard into the penalty box?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyone else thought that England attacked to much in the middle?

And I was surprised that so many of the English players looked afraid to run into the penalty box. Seriously, just one guy there when the passing attempt is made. Ridiculous. That is almost as bad as Sweden.

Is it because they are afraid for counters that they do not run the extra ten yard into the penalty box?

warspite1

No I thought that we used Rose - and particularly Walker - to good effect on the wing. And Alli and Lallana got into the box a lot. The really frustrating aspect was almost every time Sterling got the ball he just held it up. His weapon is his speed (allegedly) and he and Rose could have exploited that and really terrorised the Russian right back. Rose tried but Sterling just kept stopping, holding the ball up and passing square or backwards. Waste of space.

[Orm]

True. There were often two guys in the penalty box. But I would like three of four guys there more often. I thought England would have more players that run from box to box. At least from time to time.

And maybe I thought England attacked to much in the middle because I thought the wing attacks looked more dangerous.

[warspite1]

What a goal from Luka Modric!!! [X(]

Does me no good in the predictions dept. sadly, but what a goal all the same......

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyone else thought that England attacked to much in the middle?

That's because the wide players were pretty poor. Lallana is not international quality and neither was Raheem Sterling last night. The central players (and Rooney) were far better and offered a better outlet.


The main thing that bugged me yesterday wasn't from the England match however and I'd suspect that there are only a few people on the thread who saw it.... But half time in the Wales game and the BBC cut to a pre-recorded interview, no problem in itself. But they were talking to England player Jordan Henderson for some reason. I don't care what he has to say anyway, but in a game featuring Wales and Slovakia why do we need to hear from an England player?

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyone else thought that England attacked to much in the middle?

That's because the wide players were pretty poor. Lallana is not international quality and neither was Raheem Sterling last night. The central players (and Rooney) were far better and offered a better outlet.

I felt that Lallana actually did quite well, and was a constant threat to the Russians. Sterling was too selfish, so can agree there. The entire English side lost momentum in the second half though.

My main concerns after that match are instead;
-Joe Hart. There were a few moments there were I felt he was less than optimal, and a goalie that underperforms can very easily cause unrest in the rest of the team.

-The height of the central defenders. They are not the tallest of players, and as such, at times struggled against the Russians when high balls were sent into the box. This can become an issue during the championship.

-Kane taking corners. I would think that there are other players that are not on the team as goalscorers that are capable to take corners just as well (better actually since his corners were meh at best) as Kane.



The biggest pros for England are imo;
-the width of the stable. It has been long since I have seen an English side with that many capable players in more or less all positions.

-the ball winning and playing capabilities of the team. For once, England has a side that are a threat whenever they have possesion of the ball.

-Rooney is NOT used as a striker. His striker days are (and have been for some time imo) gone. His role as an attacking midfielder seems to suit him well.

*edit* oh, and on Friday, a norwegian paper had a poll about what country norwegians will follow during the championship. 54% voted England, 27% voted Germany, the rest of the votes were evenly distributed. So, seems I am your average norwegian after all. damn [:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

Come on, Belgium. Just two goals (2:1) and I will take over the world...







Well, just until tomorrow.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyone else thought that England attacked to much in the middle?

That's because the wide players were pretty poor. Lallana is not international quality and neither was Raheem Sterling last night. The central players (and Rooney) were far better and offered a better outlet.

I felt that Lallana actually did quite well, and was a constant threat to the Russians. Sterling was too selfish, so can agree there. The entire English side lost momentum in the second half though.

My main concerns after that match are instead;
-Joe Hart. There were a few moments there were I felt he was less than optimal, and a goalie that underperforms can very easily cause unrest in the rest of the team.

-The height of the central defenders. They are not the tallest of players, and as such, at times struggled against the Russians when high balls were sent into the box. This can become an issue during the championship.

-Kane taking corners. I would think that there are other players that are not on the team as goalscorers that are capable to take corners just as well (better actually since his corners were meh at best) as Kane.



The biggest pros for England are imo;
-the width of the stable. It has been long since I have seen an English side with that many capable players in more or less all positions.

-the ball winning and playing capabilities of the team. For once, England has a side that are a threat whenever they have possesion of the ball.

-Rooney is NOT used as a striker. His striker days are (and have been for some time imo) gone. His role as an attacking midfielder seems to suit him well.

*edit* oh, and on Friday, a norwegian paper had a poll about what country norwegians will follow during the championship. 54% voted England, 27% voted Germany, the rest of the votes were evenly distributed. So, seems I am your average norwegian after all. damn [:D]

Because I'm English I get to be negative about my team even when they did well!


Lallana's get the ball and lose it shtick gets old pretty quickly. But hey ho, it's what you get with him.

A bigger concern about the defenders is that both first choice defenders are adequate but usually not far away from a mental block and stupid mistake. That's bad enough with one player prone to brain fade but with two of them... The other problem is that Stones can pass but is not a good defender. At all right now.
Hart is still the best choice in goal, but Forster has improved the situation a lot in recent times and I wouldn't complain if he was given the chance.
Rooney was made to look good as the Russians were fairly static. Against Wales he'd have been exposed. He's not as good as he thinks he is in midfield. But we must fit the captain in somehow.
Sturridge is probably the best forward England have in the squad if he's not broken. But his legs are made of balsa wood and cream crackers.


Overall, great going forward but not good at the back.

[warspite1]

Belgium are definitely the England (Golden Generation [8|]) of the 2000's.

A bunch of individuals that, on paper are good, De Bruyne, Hazard, Alderweirald, Courtois etc - but when they play as a national team, are just appalling. No width, no speed, no imagination, no passion, no determination. We saw this in the last World Cup. They have the same manager at two years ago, so why did I put two Belgian defenders in my fantasy team? Idiot .

[warspite1]

Well done Italy though. Great character.

But what has happened to the national team when Giaccherini - yes him, who can't get in Sunderland's team - is a first choice for the national team??? Where have all the stars gone?

[Dixie]

I'd say that it proves a point. A good team is better than the sum of its parts. The best player for the team might not be the "best" player.

But even then I was a bit surprised to see him in there. Maybe there's more than one Giaccherini? [&:] Or maybe he is actually good and his not playing is a reflection of why Sunderland are in so much trouble...

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

1. Hart is still the best choice in goal, but Forster has improved the situation a lot in recent times and I wouldn't complain if he was given the chance.
2. Rooney was made to look good as the Russians were fairly static. Against Wales he'd have been exposed. He's not as good as he thinks he is in midfield. But we must fit the captain in somehow.
3. Sturridge is probably the best forward England have in the squad if he's not broken.

1. I agree, he is the best choice, but what I ment is that some of the plays he made against Russia were those you see in a goalie you cannot trust (think David James). Dropping balls he should hold etc, this can easily make the defenders mistrust him, which is never good.

2. Depends upon what you want from an AM(C) imo. His pass completion was somewhere in the high 80s, which is quite good.

3. Not sure tbh. When he is good, he is GOOD. When he is not at his best, he is not that good (and I am a LFC fan [;)]).

As to Lallana. Well, not sure what you want him to do, he broke through the defence often enough in the first half, and had some decent shots on goal as well. And he forced the Russians to always keep an eye on him, so atleast on my TV he did very well.

But being British, why do you not get The Doctor to use his Tardis and get back Shearer from his golden days? [:D]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Dixie

1. Hart is still the best choice in goal, but Forster has improved the situation a lot in recent times and I wouldn't complain if he was given the chance.
2. Rooney was made to look good as the Russians were fairly static. Against Wales he'd have been exposed. He's not as good as he thinks he is in midfield. But we must fit the captain in somehow.
3. Sturridge is probably the best forward England have in the squad if he's not broken.

1. I agree, he is the best choice, but what I ment is that some of the plays he made against Russia were those you see in a goalie you cannot trust (think David James). Dropping balls he should hold etc, this can easily make the defenders mistrust him, which is never good.

2. Depends upon what you want from an AM(C) imo. His pass completion was somewhere in the high 80s, which is quite good.

3. Not sure tbh. When he is good, he is GOOD. When he is not at his best, he is not that good (and I am a LFC fan [;)]).

As to Lallana. Well, not sure what you want him to do, he broke through the defence often enough in the first half, and had some decent shots on goal as well. And he forced the Russians to always keep an eye on him, so atleast on my TV he did very well.

But being British, why do you not get The Doctor to use his Tardis and get back Shearer from his golden days? [:D]

1. I think that's down to the situation where he's had no real competition for so long. A bit of complacency creeping in.
2. A pass completion in the high 80s in this game against a fairly static Russia. I doubt Wales would be so accommodating and the game would pass him by. Wales are a more dynamic side than Russia and he wouldn't be allowed the time on the ball.
3. I don't watch him week in, week out. But from what I have seen he's ahead of everyone except maybe Kane, but he's tired and not at his best right now.

Maybe Lallana is suffering because he's fully expected to be a bit rubbish. He's better than Jordan Henderson though, so that's in his favour I guess!

And Alan Shearer? I wouldn't bring him back 'cos he'd be sent off for elbowing someone in the face in his first match! [:D] He was a great player, at his time, but the interpretation of what is allowable has moved on a bit.

[TulliusDetritus]

You guys are totally right about Belgium: so many individual quality but overall the team sucks. The thing is this was already proven during the last WC. I should have known better.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

You guys are totally right about Belgium: so many individual quality but overall the team sucks. The thing is this was already proven during the last WC. I should have known better.

after the end of season nastiness in the Premier League (between Spurs and Chelsea) I was wondering just how Belgium could play as a team. Certainly no love lost between the Spurs players and Hazard and then add on the enduring Flemish-French fracture.

Italy just ate them up yesterday with a classic display of effective (if sometimes illegal) defending and hitting fast on the break.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: loki100

after the end of season nastiness in the Premier League (between Spurs and Chelsea) I was wondering just how Belgium could play as a team. Certainly no love lost between the Spurs players and Hazard and then add on the enduring Flemish-French fracture.

You could very well be right, still I am not convinced. Just think about the very toxic relations between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Suffice to say that Mourinho was around -of course!-, doing all he humanly could (and more) to make sure they hated each others guts [:D]

Yet the assembled players (or hardcore enemies LOL) managed to bag Euros and WC. Or simply play like a team for that matter.

If we have to trust the players (why shouldn't we believe them), the "I am a professional, I will always do my best" is just the typical stuff they always say. I assume they keep their word.

Cheers

[cohimbra]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well done Italy though. Great character.

But what has happened to the national team when Giaccherini - yes him, who can't get in Sunderland's team - is a first choice for the national team??? Where have all the stars gone?

Italy don't have 'stars' now (luckly). About Giaccherini: he's a good player for sure, but depend on what Sunderland expect from him. If they think they buy Garrincha...well...but if they think they buy an honest player with tons of 'garra', is it. Conte was clear about player convocation this time: maybe poor tecnicians (tecnicamente, non so come si dice in inglese e non ho voglia di cercare), but with head, team spirit, running and scheme application (the opposite of Balotelli, to be clear). We'll see, yesterday I liked Italy match: good defense (without it you can't win nothing) and clear ideas on counterattack.

PS. I see England second half, and I liked very much Rooney 'alla Pirlo'. Good vision, good touch, good execution velocity. Well done.

[warspite1]

What the .........? [&:]

What is the point in having a great strip if, when finally, after a billion years of non-qualifying for major championships, you don't wear it? Really looking forward to seeing the Mighty Magyars (or not so much anymore) in their cherry red shirts, white shorts and green socks and........... harumph [&:]

[warspite1]

But on the plus side its good to hear the Austrian national anthem [:)]

[Franciscus]

Well, didn't see the game but I think that was the first result that noone predicted...the return of the Magyars ?

But now finally good soccer will begin shortly [:D] (hopefully [8|])