FIFA World Cup 2018 - Semi-finals [10/11 July] **spoilers**

Pretty much all the articles and pundits are saying the same thing, that this is a good England team that can build for the future but seriously needs more creativity in midfield. Our pass completion percentage hit a tournament low against Croatia, and you could see that the team started hoofing the ball more as the game went on.

When you look at the other semi-finalists they all have plenty of quality in central midfield, whereas we had Henderson doing his best in a role that isn't natural to him, Alli had a pretty average tournament and is more of a number ten, Lingard is more of a number ten as well, and Sterling is more of a wide forward. We need a Modric, KdB, Eriksen type of player. Potentially Southgate's one mistake in terms of selection was in not taking someone like Shelvey.
 
manic111 said:
We can't maintain it because we still lack players in the key area of the pitch who are sufficiently capable. Henderson had a good tournament, but none of Lingard, Alli or Sterling are central midfielders, and Croatia overran us.

Kane ended up playing closer to the midfield than up front.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know much about the details of footballers as I don't follow club football, only internationals. So let me ask some perhaps naive questions.

If those guys aren't central midfielders, are you saying they just don't have the right skills to cover those positions or they run out of steam?

And so are you saying Southgate didn't select proper central midfielders and if so, how come?
 
What are people’s opinions on sterling being in midfield instead of Lingard and using rashford as the second striker.

I’m just trying to think what you could do to add creativity to the middle.

If Ali had been on his game I think England would have done a lot better. He’s a really good player who didn’t seem to show up.
 
Sterling messed up literally everything he was involved in, awful control, never picking the right final pass, pathetic in font of goal. I can't fathom why he got so much game time. We have 2 other really quick players sat on the bench who if given more than a couple of minutes here and there I'm 100% confident would have scored more and assisted more. Ali was also very disappointing with Lindgard only a little less so. We seem to be really lacking in players with guile and vision.
 
I just think that overall England looked so much better than they have for many years.

The really positive thing is that they are all young.

They will still be together in 2 or 4 years.

A good performance in the Euros, hopefully this new Euro league will mean a few good match ups, as in proper matches and not just friendlies, for good experience, and by the time the next World Cup comes around I woudl hope we woudl be on a par with the likes of Spain and Germany etc and we would not need a so called "easy route" we could be in with a shout against any team from anywhere and really have a positive thought and attitude in that we can win this.

A bit more experience and play in decent premier league teams, maybe even European teams for some I hope, for all players will mean they will learn to score from open play as well as set pieces.

I really cannot see why England should be a real fighting force within Europe in in the next few years.
 
Merlin5 said:
Well I don't know much about the details of footballers as I don't follow club football, only internationals. So let me ask some perhaps naive questions.

If those guys aren't central midfielders, are you saying they just don't have the right skills to cover those positions or they run out of steam?

And so are you saying Southgate didn't select proper central midfielders and if so, how come?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that they're all players who play off the front man for their clubs. To be a top central midfielder you need to be able to a) defend a bit and b) get the ball deep and move it forward, which is a different skill to getting the ball at number 10 and playing a final pass. You also need to be able to dictate matches, know when to slow it down and speed it up, etc. Alli, Lingard and Sterling's first thought is to run forward, vacating the midfield and making it hard to actually get the ball to them, and leaving us vulnerable when we lose it.

We don't have anyone great in that role - Henderson is our best, and he's nothing more than good. Dier can't pass, Loftus-Cheek is inexperienced, and Delph is fine but nothing more. Southgate's choice was therefore between continuing with the same team (which worked against other sides with poor midfields but not against Croatia with two of the best CMs in the world), or change it and risk putting in a "less good" player. I'd prefer to have seen us line up with Loftus-Cheek in instead of Alli, giving us more presence in the centre, but it was a tough call and there's no way of knowing whether that would have worked.

Ultimately, we lost to a team which exploited our weaknesses (central midfield, and down the flanks) very well.

Edit: That's not to say that I'm disappointed, we did far better than expected and I'm happy with where we got to. If Ox keeps developing in CM, and Loftus-Cheek develops as well, then we have the makings of a strong team.
 
manic111 said:
I'm saying that they're all players who play off the front man for their clubs. To be a top central midfielder you need to be able to a) defend a bit and b) get the ball deep and move it forward, which is a different skill to getting the ball at number 10 and playing a final pass. You also need to be able to dictate matches, know when to slow it down and speed it up, etc. Alli, Lingard and Sterling's first thought is to run forward, vacating the midfield and making it hard to actually get the ball to them, and leaving us vulnerable when we lose it.

We don't have anyone great in that role - Henderson is our best, and he's nothing more than good. Dier can't pass, Loftus-Cheek is inexperienced, and Delph is fine but nothing more. Southgate's choice was therefore between continuing with the same team (which worked against other sides with poor midfields but not against Croatia with two of the best CMs in the world), or change it and risk putting in a "less good" player. I'd prefer to have seen us line up with Loftus-Cheek in instead of Alli, giving us more presence in the centre, but it was a tough call and there's no way of knowing whether that would have worked.

Ultimately, we lost to a team which exploited our weaknesses (central midfield, and down the flanks) very well.

Edit: That's not to say that I'm disappointed, we did far better than expected and I'm happy with where we got to. If Ox keeps developing in CM, and Loftus-Cheek develops as well, then we have the makings of a strong team.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Dier but I don't understand why Southgate didn't bring him on or anyone to try and plug that gap a lot earlier - I don't have your level of insight into the game but even to me it was obvious there was a problem there. One of the things Trippier is good at is knowing when to speed up and slow down the game, etc. which was another loss when he was done physically - around 10 minutes or so after he scored there was no point having him on the pitch any more all due respect as he was done.
 
Rroff said:
I'm no fan of Dier but I don't understand why Southgate didn't bring him on or anyone to try and plug that gap a lot earlier - I don't have your level of insight into the game but even to me it was obvious there was a problem there. One of the things Trippier is good at is knowing when to speed up and slow down the game, etc. which was another loss when he was done physically - around 10 minutes or so after he scored there was no point having him on the pitch any more all due respect as he was done.
Click to expand...

It's a difference of opinion about how to play the game, but for me the issue wasn't so much that there was a gap in the middle (although that was a problem), more that when we had the ball we had nowhere to go with it except passing it between the CBs and Henderson. Loftus would have given us the ability to drive forward from midfield bringing the forward players into the game. If we'd been 2-0 up, Dier would have been the right change, but as things were his presence just meant we lost the ball more, inviting further attacks.

Edit: That said, loads of teams have been successful down the years by bringing on defensive players - Mourinho, Greece when they won the Euros, Portugal two years ago, etc.
 
nicktay2605 said:
Pretty much all the articles and pundits are saying the same thing, that this is a good England team that can build for the future but seriously needs more creativity in midfield. Our pass completion percentage hit a tournament low against Croatia, and you could see that the team started hoofing the ball more as the game went on.
Click to expand...

Pass completion is a poor, outdated tool to use when assessing a team. High pass completion indicated save and unadventurous passing, which doesn't tend to lead to lots of goals. Teams that take risks, play creatively and open up defenses will tend to have lower pass completion statistics. A defensive midfielder passing it repeatedly back to his defense will have a high pass completion but offer little threat. A creative midfielder playing probing and risky passes into forwards will carry a lower pass completion but would yield more opportunities.

The statistic which is key is Packing - the ability to take out as high a number of opponents with one pass.
 
manic111 said:
It's a difference of opinion about how to play the game, but for me the issue wasn't so much that there was a gap in the middle (although that was a problem), more that when we had the ball we had nowhere to go with it except passing it between the CBs and Henderson. Loftus would have given us the ability to drive forward from midfield bringing the forward players into the game. If we'd been 2-0 up, Dier would have been the right change, but as things were his presence just meant we lost the ball more, inviting further attacks.

Edit: That said, loads of teams have been successful down the years by bringing on defensive players - Mourinho, Greece when they won the Euros, Portugal two years ago, etc.
Click to expand...

Eh I have no idea what the right approach is I was just aware there was an issue there which needed some kind of addressing.
 
A team always wants to possess the ball more. The best defence is the attack.
Yesterday, England lost the game because they didn't possess the ball enough but rather were sending the ball to nowhere forwards.
 
manic111 said:
I'm saying that they're all players who play off the front man for their clubs. To be a top central midfielder you need to be able to a) defend a bit and b) get the ball deep and move it forward, which is a different skill to getting the ball at number 10 and playing a final pass. You also need to be able to dictate matches, know when to slow it down and speed it up, etc. Alli, Lingard and Sterling's first thought is to run forward, vacating the midfield and making it hard to actually get the ball to them, and leaving us vulnerable when we lose it.

We don't have anyone great in that role - Henderson is our best, and he's nothing more than good. Dier can't pass, Loftus-Cheek is inexperienced, and Delph is fine but nothing more. Southgate's choice was therefore between continuing with the same team (which worked against other sides with poor midfields but not against Croatia with two of the best CMs in the world), or change it and risk putting in a "less good" player. I'd prefer to have seen us line up with Loftus-Cheek in instead of Alli, giving us more presence in the centre, but it was a tough call and there's no way of knowing whether that would have worked.

Ultimately, we lost to a team which exploited our weaknesses (central midfield, and down the flanks) very well.

Edit: That's not to say that I'm disappointed, we did far better than expected and I'm happy with where we got to. If Ox keeps developing in CM, and Loftus-Cheek develops as well, then we have the makings of a strong team.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. As Rroff said, you have a good insight into the mechanics of the game.

Well I'm probably oversimplifying here, but I find it painful to know that we have multi million pound players yet England can't gather top central midfielders from all the available players in the premier league.
 
I think some need to see the reality of how good this England Squad actually is. Years gone by there has been a number of top tier players in the team. However you look at them now, I would say only Harry Kane is world class, perhaps some have the potential to reach there but they aren't there yet. Considering they play 3 CMs, the squad seemed to lack actual CMs.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I don't think Pickford is any better than Hart. I would rather bring the more experienced Hart back in the team!
Click to expand...

I certainly can't fault Pickford - he saved everything it would be reasonable to expect a keeper to save and kept a few out that no one could have asked a keeper to save. There were a few moments his inexperience showed but he managed (maybe with a bit of luck) to recover them so I don't think anything would be gained bringing Hart back.
 
Well Hart may not have saved us in the Columbian penalty shoot out meaning we would have gone out in our first knock out game. He also made some epic saves in the Sweden game.

I very rarely blame goalkeepers. If it gets as far as the keeper, the defense has failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom