England'S Official 2012 Euro Discussion Thread

[SantiSuk]

Shearer said on the BEEB that Wellbeck was man of the match,he was superb at least he showed the pace to beat defenders at times.

I would of liked to have seen shithot Carroll and what his workrate would of been like !!

Another Shearer gob$hite comment. Parker, Benzema or Nasri for me.

I'm a Johnny come lately to the suite of comments today, having mistimed a tackle on the live match start time; most things that need to be said have been well put already. Being an ex-ref (not big stuff), I would have a slight concern about the match ref if I were the Tournament Head referee. Nothing game-changing or individually controversial but I thought his inconsistency towards yellow cards was noteworthy. When he carded Ox-Ch early on for a 50/50 challenge (by a forward) I thought he was going to stand for no nonsense and no 'first-offence-discounted'. But no, he then awarded free kicks but no cards to Cabaye and another defender in circs no better than the Ox-Ch offence. Later Riberry got away without a yellow as well.

Say no more than that I hope someone in the England camp has a quiet word to make it less likely that we get that guy again if there is to be a later-in-the-tournament for England.

[rixalex]

Again why is Gerrard playing so deep? Surely he would be better used we're Young is playing or further forward.

I think Gerrard's career has moved on a bit from those days of playing as far advanced as you suggest. His experience for me is better utilised a bit further back where he can do some organising and overseeing.... and setting things up.

[mommysboy]

England were pinned back because France are so good. France could not make more of the possession they had because the England defensive unit including Parker and Gerrard are so good.

Although the possession stats read 70/30 with France having double the amount of touches, the reality was a much closer match, and England looked the more threatening and incisive team at times.

No surprise that the best footballing teams so far are Spain and France, but well impressed with England and if we continue with the same solidity and a bit more creativity we may progress further.

I thought when they did have the ball England retained the ball much better than normal, and gave it away much less cheaply.

[mommysboy]

Again why is Gerrard playing so deep? Surely he would be better used we're Young is playing or further forward.

I think Gerrard's career has moved on a bit from those days of playing as far advanced as you suggest. His experience for me is better utilised a bit further back where he can do some organising and overseeing.... and setting things up.

I have been quite critical of gerrard, but thought he was probably our best player last night, have to hand it to terry too, a really good defensive performance.

[StevieH]

England were pinned back because France are so good. France could not make more of the possession they had because the England defensive unit including Parker and Gerrard are so good.

Although the possession stats read 70/30 with France having double the amount of touches, the reality was a much closer match, and England looked the more threatening and incisive team at times.

No surprise that the best footballing teams so far are Spain and France, but well impressed with England and if we continue with the same solidity and a bit more creativity we may progress further.

I thought when they did have the ball England retained the ball much better than normal, and gave it away much less cheaply.

]

don't agree with that. think they were well beatable last night and england made them look a bit better than they are. ribery had yet another big match bottle, the middle two of cabaye and diarra was not hassled enough and for the goal england just backed off and off nasri and let him have too much time to shoot.

can see england ending up with three draws from this group myself.

[Bangkokhatter]

I thought when we attacked in the first half hour we looked ok, with some good link play and the move that led to Milner's chance was as good as any play i have seen so far. Pity the pit pony went on and missed.

France at the back were very poor and we should have exploited it more, rather than try and defend a 1-0 lead.

Gerrard and Parker were both good, anyone else think Parker picked up a knock? seemed to be struggling a bit in the second half.

[rijit]

Again why is Gerrard playing so deep? Surely he would be better used we're Young is playing or further forward.

I think Gerrard's career has moved on a bit from those days of playing as far advanced as you suggest. His experience for me is better utilised a bit further back where he can do some organising and overseeing.... and setting things up.

Yep, agree with that, Cept i dont think he 's anywhere near as good here as he was in his prev position, You could'nt 100% put the french goal down to him but he defo dropped off when he shouldnt have and allowed nasri the shooting chance.

[StevieH]

thought gerrard had a really good game but his best position is still where young was playing, whether he's getting older or not. he's still a goal threat, still bursts into the box onto half-chances and snuffs out mistakes and second-ball opportunity in that area far, far better than someone like young.

[rijit]

thought gerrard had a really good game but his best position is still where young was playing, whether he's getting older or not. he's still a goal threat, still bursts into the box onto half-chances and snuffs out mistakes and second-ball opportunity in that area far, far better than someone like young.

The big question is have the constant injuries finally taken their toll,? interestingly enuf, haven't Liverpool been using him deeper?, But 4 sure for England there are better players in that deeper position.

[rixalex]

thought gerrard had a really good game but his best position is still where young was playing, whether he's getting older or not. he's still a goal threat, still bursts into the box onto half-chances and snuffs out mistakes and second-ball opportunity in that area far, far better than someone like young.

With regards that stuff you mention, he was better than Young... just not sure he still is. Certainly didn't show it for me last season for Liverpool. OK, he didn't have much chance to show it, but don't think you can make managerial decisions on how you think players might play. Has to be on form.

[StevieH]

thought gerrard had a really good game but his best position is still where young was playing, whether he's getting older or not. he's still a goal threat, still bursts into the box onto half-chances and snuffs out mistakes and second-ball opportunity in that area far, far better than someone like young.

With regards that stuff you mention, he was better than Young... just not sure he still is. Certainly didn't show it for me last season for Liverpool. OK, he didn't have much chance to show it, but don't think you can make managerial decisions on how you think players might play. Has to be on form.

his form's fine. he was the best player on the pitch last night i thought, even while playing within himself. he didn't play much in that role for liverpool last season because we lost both lucas and adam to injury and were forced to use him deeper.

and you make all managerial decisions on how you think players might play. that's what managing is.

[SantiSuk]

Allez La France:

If, as seems quite possible, France beat both Sweden and Ukraine, then the important game for England is Ukraine (Rooney-included). In fact England could afford to lose to Sweden.

[StevieH]

Allez La France:

If, as seems quite possible, France beat both Sweden and Ukraine, then the important game for England is Ukraine (Rooney-included). In fact England could afford to lose to Sweden.

you want to go into the third match against the host nation on just one point? really?

the important game for england is the next one. simple as that.

[LucidLucifer]

Allez La France:

If, as seems quite possible, France beat both Sweden and Ukraine, then the important game for England is Ukraine (Rooney-included). In fact England could afford to lose to Sweden.

you want to go into the third match against the host nation on just one point? really?

the important game for england is the next one. simple as that.

I totally agree. Four points in the bag and Sweden out of it, we might be able to get away with a draw against the Ukraine.

[rixalex]

With regards that stuff you mention, he was better than Young... just not sure he still is. Certainly didn't show it for me last season for Liverpool. OK, he didn't have much chance to show it, but don't think you can make managerial decisions on how you think players might play. Has to be on form.

his form's fine.

Yeah "fine" about sums it up. Kidding yourself if you think he's the player he was a couple of years ago. Not having a go. Just saying be realistic. Doesn't mean he doesn't have an important role to play in the team. Just not the same one it was before,.

he was the best player on the pitch last night i thought, even while playing within himself.

He had a solid game that was flattered somewhat by mediocre play that was going on around him. Hardly set the heart on the fire or did anything you would call game changing. A Gerrard on form does, although having said that, we rarely get to see this when he puts on the England shirt.

and you make all managerial decisions on how you think players might play. that's what managing is.

Yes of course but how you think players might play is not based on your imagination, but on how you have witnessed them capable of playing within recent time. And i don't think over the course of the last season, Roy has seen anything to suggest Gerrard is the best man for the role Devil proposes and wishes for him.

[MB1]

Allez La France:

If, as seems quite possible, France beat both Sweden and Ukraine, then the important game for England is Ukraine (Rooney-included). In fact England could afford to lose to Sweden.

you want to go into the third match against the host nation on just one point? really?

the important game for england is the next one. simple as that.

I totally agree. Four points in the bag and Sweden out of it, we might be able to get away with a draw against the Ukraine.

And hopefully France lose against the Ukraine, if they beat Sweden they will have 4 points and if we beat Sweden and a draw against the Ukraine we'll have 5, by by France and Sweden.

[mommysboy]

Allez La France:

If, as seems quite possible, France beat both Sweden and Ukraine, then the important game for England is Ukraine (Rooney-included). In fact England could afford to lose to Sweden.

you want to go into the third match against the host nation on just one point? really?

the important game for england is the next one. simple as that.

That would also be a host nation knowing that one good result is all that is needed, not my idea of a walkover.

A win against Sweden is a must.

I don't think either Sweden or Ukraine are nearly as good as France, or England for that matter and I'm alsosure we will enjoy much more possesion, let's hope they make use of it.

[salty]

When you think there are 3 possible results from every game there are still 81 possible permutations in the remaining 4 games of Group 4. I would say that England are in a much better position after 1 game than Ireland not that is a huge surprise to me.

[carmine]

Theres seems to be a lot of debate about Gerrard on here. Tactically he is being played too deep. he's far moe threatening further up and has goals in him, which baring in mind how weak we are upfront without Rooney would be a very useful asset.

I also think as i said before he fully justifies the decision to be made captain and was imho the England man of the match.

That was a very good result for us and now we have to go all out to win against sweden which won't be east. If we can score first i hope we don't sit back and let them come at us. i would though like to see him beef up the midfield.

[MrRed]

What would your team be Carms?

This is mine 4-1-3-2

Hart

Johnson

Lescott

Twit* upgraded from <deleted> because of his fairly good performance with France

Cole

Parker

Gerrard...pushing on more

Young...left

Walcott...right

Wellbeck

Carroll/Defoe

[rixalex]

Theres seems to be a lot of debate about Gerrard on here. Tactically he is being played too deep. he's far moe threatening further up and has goals in him, which baring in mind how weak we are upfront without Rooney would be a very useful asset.

I also think as i said before he fully justifies the decision to be made captain and was imho the England man of the match.

That was a very good result for us and now we have to go all out to win against sweden which won't be east. If we can score first i hope we don't sit back and let them come at us. i would though like to see him beef up the midfield.

Whilst i don't agree that Gerrard should be playing advanced, i do completely agree with the decision for him to be captain. Should in my opinion have been given that job a long time ago, not just from a tactical standpoint either. Had some dark days getting behind a team captained by such a tosser. It's a relief they are over.

[rixalex]

What would your team be Carms?

This is mine 4-1-3-2

Hart

Johnson

Lescott

Twit* upgraded from <deleted> because of his fairly good performance with France

Cole

Parker

Gerrard...pushing on more

Young...left

Walcott...right

Wellbeck

Carroll/Defoe

That's pretty close to it for me. Wouldn't mind Gerrard pushing on more, providing he chooses his moments carefully, and conserves his energy, particularly in the first half of games.

My only question marks in the above are on Walcott and Carroll. Definitely would have Defoe over Carroll. As for Walcott, not sure who i'd rather have but Walcott can be so frustrating.... perhaps he'll come good.. he has the ability no doubt.

[StevieH]

i'd keep milner on the right. walcott offers nothing whatsoever defensively and not all that much attacking wise either. milner is also capable of tucking in if gerrard wants to go forward inside or when johnson gets forward outside.

think playing a set two up front is asking for trouble in this tournament though. you're still better off playing 4-2-3-1 with the 3 supporting one striker able to convert to a 5 in midfield without the ball.

[SantiSuk]

Agreed, Mr Red. The two sets of four at the back is clearly inappropriate formation for a game we want to go out to win* and where the opposition does not have the kind of attack threat that France posed (Sweden = one dangerous forward, poorly supported). If the game were to go well I'd like to see Cole and Johnson being given more freedom to overlap with Parker dropping back alongside Terry and Lescott. There may be pressure times where Gerrard will need to drop back into the two lines of four formation, which England can now feel pretty comfortable with.

I'd like to see Defoe start with Wellbeck. The danger with putting Caroll on too early is we get sucked into playing the long ball game. That's a good option to have if the mainstream formation doesn't work for one reason or another

Hope dropping Ox-Cha doesn't dent his confidence - it was too soon to be taking him to a tournament anyway (not an excuse from a Gooner, I said that way back).

[i was not suggesting (^) that we don't aim to win against Sweden, Stevie, just pointing out the flexibility that a dominant France might allow to one of the other teams like England to get through by only gainng 3 more points. Just like I hope that we don't see a cautious England for the next game, I'm sure we will see a much more aggresssive France in their Ukraine match.

[MrRed]

I would play Walcott because of his pace over Milner and Defoe over Carroll for his experience and better chance of nicking a goal.

[carmine]

What would your team be Carms?

This is mine 4-1-3-2

Hart

Johnson

Lescott

Twit* upgraded from <deleted> because of his fairly good performance with France

Cole

Parker

Gerrard...pushing on more

Young...left

Walcott...right

Wellbeck

Carroll/Defoe

That's pretty close to it for me. Wouldn't mind Gerrard pushing on more, providing he chooses his moments carefully, and conserves his energy, particularly in the first half of games.

My only question marks in the above are on Walcott and Carroll. Definitely would have Defoe over Carroll. As for Walcott, not sure who i'd rather have but Walcott can be so frustrating.... perhaps he'll come good.. he has the ability no doubt.

Pretty much agree. i think carroll might work better than Defoe in a Roy team. Gerrard playing further up for sure but i can't go along with Walcott. He's a one in three player, disappears in games and is too much of a luxury. Just play someone else!

[StevieH]

[i was not suggesting (^) that we don't aim to win against Sweden, Stevie, just pointing out the flexibility that a dominant France might allow to one of the other teams like England to get through by only gainng 3 more points. Just like I hope that we don't see a cautious England for the next game, I'm sure we will see a much more aggresssive France in their Ukraine match.

i just don't think france are that good mate. they're on a good run in friendlies but while they have a few genuinely top class players (benzema, ribery, nasri) they have little experience of big tournaments and pretty much no on-field leadership. i can quite easily see them losing to ukraine and even going out at the group stage here.

[MrRed]

i'd keep milner on the right. walcott offers nothing whatsoever defensively and not all that much attacking wise either. milner is also capable of tucking in if gerrard wants to go forward inside or when johnson gets forward outside.

think playing a set two up front is asking for trouble in this tournament though. you're still better off playing 4-2-3-1 with the 3 supporting one striker able to convert to a 5 in midfield without the ball.

I think we should not worry to much about the defence with Sweden playing a 4-5-1

Walcott does offer pace and the ability to run at defenders although he does have to pick it up for England.

We definitely do not need to play with back four and two in the hold like against France...no way!

[MrRed]

[i was not suggesting (^) that we don't aim to win against Sweden, Stevie, just pointing out the flexibility that a dominant France might allow to one of the other teams like England to get through by only gainng 3 more points. Just like I hope that we don't see a cautious England for the next game, I'm sure we will see a much more aggresssive France in their Ukraine match.

i just don't think france are that good mate. they're on a good run in friendlies but while they have a few genuinely top class players (benzema, ribery, nasri) they have little experience of big tournaments and pretty much no on-field leadership. i can quite easily see them losing to ukraine and even going out at the group stage here.

[i was not suggesting (^) that we don't aim to win against Sweden, Stevie, just pointing out the flexibility that a dominant France might allow to one of the other teams like England to get through by only gainng 3 more points. Just like I hope that we don't see a cautious England for the next game, I'm sure we will see a much more aggresssive France in their Ukraine match.

i just don't think france are that good mate. they're on a good run in friendlies but while they have a few genuinely top class players (benzema, ribery, nasri) they have little experience of big tournaments and pretty much no on-field leadership. i can quite easily see them losing to ukraine and even going out at the group stage here.

Benzema for me is not top class.

[StevieH]

I think we should not worry to much about the defence with Sweden playing a 4-5-1

Walcott does offer pace and the ability to run at defenders although he does have to pick it up for England.

We definitely do not need to play with back four and two in the hold like against France...no way!

but this is where people go wrong in thinking that 4-2-3-1 is a defensive formation, it isn't. when you've not got the ball you're able to make it a 5 in front of your defence two swamp and stifle opponents. but when you're in possession it's the formation that gets the most out of your fullbacks as attackers with the wide men in the 3 tucking in towards the striker. the middle one in the 3, say gerrard, plays just off the striker. so then in possession one of the 2, say phil jones, can step up into the space vacated by gerrard as he goes forward. meanwhile you've got two excellent attacking fullbacks in cole and johnson giving you width. suddenly you're attacking with 7 players. while parker and the 2 centrebacks guard the back door.