World Cup Group B (England, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Sweden) **SPOILERS**

Beckham was awful once again, really what kind of performance was that from an england team captain. In his heyday when he was 25 or so he was brilliant and scored regularly from free kicks and long range shooting, that time has long gone.
 
Englands problem was not pressurising the Swedes, we let them have too much time to think what to do. Also our positioning was poor, no-one was defending the corners well and why did Cole stand on the line behind Robinson should have gone to the post.

All that said

Big Kev said:
COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
I'm happy with our performance in the first half. The defence looks solid in open play, we passed the ball around with some fluidity (albeit a little slowly at times). Good confident attacking, need to do better off the crosses, but all in all not bad.

Second half was a different story though. Sweden pressed harder, and the defence looked shakier, though still not that much of a threat in open play. We seriously need to sort out our set piece defending - that second goal was appalling. At least three players that should have dealt with it, and didn't. I have no idea what Ashley Cole was doing backing away from a ball that he could easily have cleared...

Anyway, not as gloomy as a lot of people here seem to think. We've showed in the first three matches that even though we're not playing our best, we can still get the results when they count.

*Now* is the time that we have to show what we're made of. We need to stop resting on our laurels when we get a goal in front. Hopefully we'll have that incentive now that we're through the groups. We've got the 'easier' of the two from group A so we should be happy (though I hope we don't get too confident and cocky).

By all means, criticise the things that England did badly, but don't overlook the good points, of which there have been many. Rooney is back, and is gaining in confidence. Joe Cole is superb, and even Hargreaves didn't look so bad in midfield (never thought I'd be saying that! :eek: ).
 
Very poor 2nd half for England, should have lost the match but just about held on. The main thing is England are through so no point moaning.

JohnnyG said:
How are you mate?:)
Click to expand...

Not bad myself, how you doing? Working full time now so not on as much, also moved home as well recently and still getting fully used to the new environment!
 
Can I just say two things about England matches which I seem to say after everyone.

1) Commentators can you please for the love of God stop saying such stupid things like "One minute to go and it looks like England are well on their way to beating Sweden" Everytime it invites a goal.

2) Breaking balls. Why is it that with England everytime they get a break on a ball they stop and head back to their own goal. Every other team heads straight for the oppositions goal. England on the other hand mess around passing the ball backwards which just seems to allow the other team to get their defence organised.
 
Gooner14 said:
I don't see the problem in taking Walcott, but he should be playing. However we could be going in to the 2nd phase with a half fit Rooney and a striker who is a forward (according to Liverpool fans;))

Great :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

of course you dont mind:) your a gooner fan
 
I don't think anyone can really say Walcott is crap, because unless they're hardcore Southampton fans that went to all the reserve games, I don't think he's played nearly enough for anyone to make a fair assesment of how good he is.

But that's the problem too. If all he's really played are said reserve matches, and now he's so highly rated to deserve an England place, why isn't he playing? Because we can see the abilities of Defoe/Bent/Others when we watch the prem, and to take Theo over them must therefore mean to Sven that he's better than those guys. And if that's the case, why not play him, because Defoe or Bent would have been just as good an option as Crouch to bring on when he did.

Silliness. But yeah, I might be a tiny bit glad he's getting the experience out there anyway. :p
 
Weebull said:
I don't think anyone can really say Walcott is crap, because unless they're hardcore Southampton fans that went to all the reserve games, I don't think he's played nearly enough for anyone to make a fair assesment of how good he is.

But that's the problem too. If all he's really played are said reserve matches, and now he's so highly rated to deserve an England place, why isn't he playing? Because we can see the abilities of Defoe/Bent/Others when we watch the prem, and to take Theo over them must therefore mean to Sven that he's better than those guys. And if that's the case, why not play him, because Defoe or Bent would have been just as good an option as Crouch to bring on when he did.

Silliness. But yeah, I might be a tiny bit glad he's getting the experience out there anyway. :p
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Why didnt they just take defoe as well? Just dont take another midfielder, maybe Jenas or Downing. If we needed another winger we could play walcott there.

+44
 
shocking really. We were playing so well first half then it just went wrong. Why crouch came on instead of walcott is beyond me. If you want rooney to support the striker surely walcott is the better option. Plus crouch had a booking so what was the point in risking him like he's been saying all week.

fat sol was s*** as was ashley cole
 
Last edited:
we are lucky to be through as top of groupe. we were woeful second half, perpetuated by the idiot turnip


1: Owen Injured. In a no threat game (were going through no mater the result) doesnt bring on walcott. (hardly going to bring him on in the final)

2: Brings on crouch, who although admitedly plays a different type of midfield to Striker in the hole role, plays the same role as rooney.

3: Leaves beckham on the pitch who has been and was woeful.

4: brings off rooney who was trying and provided the only real spark and replaces with a midfielder.

5: gerrard came on and did well no doubt and i think the decision had to be made either to bring walcott on for crouch, lennon for Beckham or Gerrard for beckham, bringing rooney off was a non issue and in ehe end made us too defensive.


but credit is due and i got to say I though hargreaves was the best england player on the pitch, mopping up and doing the donkey work in midfield.
 
My opinions:

memphisto said:
1: Owen Injured. In a no threat game (were going through no mater the result) doesnt bring on walcott. (hardly going to bring him on in the final)

Needed to get a goal to be better for the rest of the tournament

2: Brings on crouch, who although admitedly plays a different type of midfield to Striker in the hole role, plays the same role as rooney.

Agreed should have brough Walcott on

3: Leaves beckham on the pitch who has been and was woeful.

He wasnt that bad!

4: brings off rooney who was trying and provided the only real spark and replaces with a midfielder.

He's nowhere near fully fit. He didnt exactly set the world alight. As you said it was a nothing game so why risk one of our best players just back from injury for 90mins.


5: gerrard came on and did well no doubt and i think the decision had to be made either to bring walcott on for crouch, lennon for Beckham or Gerrard for beckham, bringing rooney off was a non issue and in ehe end made us too defensive.

Erm no If he brough walcott on for Owen he could have swapped Crouchy for Rooney.


but credit is due and i got to say I though hargreaves was the best england player on the pitch, mopping up and doing the donkey work in midfield.


He wasnt that good.
Click to expand...

+44
 
Overal I thought that was the best we've played so far in the World Cup this year.

Ok there were negatives and that last goal was unlucky against us. We should have scrapped through a 2-1 win tbh.

But, we didn't have Owen and Rooney didn't play the whole match (which clearly annoyed him)

So now England will be going into there next game with a stronger team and Rooney determined to peform.

So yeah, Come On England :D
 
I see that a few people are starting to see why Hargreaves is thought of highly everywhere but here. :p

I personally thought that today, he was Englands best midfielder. He was everywhere, and battling for everything, tracking back, ect;
Just like i said, give him a full game, in his prefered position, and he'll perform more times than not.
 
BoomAM said:
I see that a few people are starting to see why Hargreaves is thought of highly everywhere but here. :p

I personally thought that today, he was Englands best midfielder. He was everywhere, and battling for everything, tracking back, ect;
Just like i said, give him a full game, in his prefered position, and he'll perform more times than not.
Click to expand...

Hopefully if he keeps it up playing 5 in midfield should really let both Lampard and Gerrard go forward.

+44
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom