England World Cup Thread

[iancnx]

Hart

Johnson/Jones Cahill. Jakielka. Baines.

Gerard. Lampard.

Sterling. Lalana. Barkley.

Sturridge.

.

No reason to change my selection from last week. Rooney out. Please No Milner. And Wilshire is still a light weight.

[P45Mustang]

What I suppose Roy has to consider is, next opponent is Uruguay with Suarez.

A different thing from Pirlo's Italian Job.

But as Brian Clough used to say: 'We play our own game, never mind the opposition'

If Costa Rica can beat them......

[nontabury]

Welbeck or Barkley seem like the options?

I'd give Barkley more of a crack.

What i like about Barkley is he's still such an unknown quantity at this level. Same to a large degree probably with sterling, who was really good. They can probably give us an edge.

Start with Sterling and use Barkley as an impact player. Just think he needs to sort out the Rooney situation, how it impacts on the left and decide on how to set up to get maximum effect out of Gerrard.

Back five is ok. The first Italien goal was quality and well executed. The second was down to piss poor defending. Aside of that we just need to take our chances

How in heavens can you say the back five was OK,we don't seem to have a dominant player in the heart of the defence and Baines had a terrible game, both Italian goals came from their right. I don't know who was marking Balotelli, but he certainly din't do a good job of it. As for the forward line I think they were very exciting and caused a lot of trouble to the Italian defence, and were unlucky not to have scored more.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[stevenl]

Spain was one of those countries in 2010, so that could give England, Uruguay and the Spanish themselves hope.

[rijit]

i like barkley, but italy with their solid defence found him.easy to deal with, his game seems to be.atm running from deep.into exposed areas, at 2 1 up italy werent ever gonna.let that happen. Wellbeck in patch's played well, but he needs to run more at players and inject.more urgency into his game , dificult given the temp and conditioning and not to forget he is aint exactly a midget. if italy found sterling hard to handle.wonder how they would have coped.with the ox running and getting in behind at them late? i suspect they wouldnt have .How else could we have won last night?, easy on reflection, but lambert on late any one ?

overall i know losing is disapointing but tbh we gave it a good go and looked a decent team, im more disapointed in our preperation and our players energy management both which, arguably , really let us down in the last 20 mins.

[carmine]

Welbeck or Barkley seem like the options?

I'd give Barkley more of a crack.

What i like about Barkley is he's still such an unknown quantity at this level. Same to a large degree probably with sterling, who was really good. They can probably give us an edge.

Start with Sterling and use Barkley as an impact player. Just think he needs to sort out the Rooney situation, how it impacts on the left and decide on how to set up to get maximum effect out of Gerrard.

Back five is ok. The first Italien goal was quality and well executed. The second was down to piss poor defending. Aside of that we just need to take our chances

How in heavens can you say the back five was OK,we don't seem to have a dominant player in the heart of the defence and Baines had a terrible game, both Italian goals came from their right. I don't know who was marking Balotelli, but he certainly din't do a good job of it. As for the forward line I think they were very exciting and caused a lot of trouble to the Italian defence, and were unlucky not to have scored more.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

First and foremost, Baines was constantly being left exposed with huge amounts of space ceded in front of him and that wasn't his fault. Blame the midfield being pulled out of shape. So what if both goals came from crosses from the right. Look at them again and come back with a sensible statement. The only reasonable comment you make is that theres no one dominant at the heart of the defense but thats because we don't have a player with much experience and Terry wasn't up for selection, Rio's backs gone, so what on earth do you expect!! Or were you expecting them to perform like a settled back five with over three hundred caps between them and a wealth of understanding of each others play and movement?

[P45Mustang]

Spain was one of those countries in 2010, so that could give England, Uruguay and the Spanish themselves hope.

And correct me if I am mistaken, but I do believe Spain not only got out of the group stage, they actually got into the last 16; then they got into the Quarter Finals; then they got into the Semi Finals: and then they played the Dutch.

Total disaster as I recall.

I think we need a statistical analysis that goes back further than 1998 btw, in order to provide true perspective and a measure of reality.

Cheers.

[bigbamboo]

I thought beforehand that England would lose to Italy and Uruguay and draw the last one.

Now I think they might lose all three.

They really are so one dimensional it's pathetic. I'm all for a bit of organisation but Teutonic efficiency they are not.

Maybe place a small wager then chicog if you are confident of failure.

On the evidence of the first two games Italy and England will qualify.

[carmine]

I thought beforehand that England would lose to Italy and Uruguay and draw the last one.

Now I think they might lose all three.

They really are so one dimensional it's pathetic. I'm all for a bit of organisation but Teutonic efficiency they are not.

Maybe place a small wager then chicog if you are confident of failure.

On the evidence of the first two games Italy and England will qualify.

And with a certain Luis Suarez doubtful for next thurday. That really would be a boost. They were totally awful the other day too were they not!

[P45Mustang]

OK fine.

But I can't place a small wager on it, because I am in Thailand, and that would be illegal of course.

( I think Luis back for Thursday from what I'm reading in the jungle news.)

[StevieH]

Welbeck or Barkley seem like the options?

I'd give Barkley more of a crack.

What i like about Barkley is he's still such an unknown quantity at this level. Same to a large degree probably with sterling, who was really good. They can probably give us an edge.

Start with Sterling and use Barkley as an impact player. Just think he needs to sort out the Rooney situation, how it impacts on the left and decide on how to set up to get maximum effect out of Gerrard.

Back five is ok. The first Italien goal was quality and well executed. The second was down to piss poor defending. Aside of that we just need to take our chances

How in heavens can you say the back five was OK,we don't seem to have a dominant player in the heart of the defence and Baines had a terrible game, both Italian goals came from their right. I don't know who was marking Balotelli, but he certainly din't do a good job of it. As for the forward line I think they were very exciting and caused a lot of trouble to the Italian defence, and were unlucky not to have scored more.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

First and foremost, Baines was constantly being left exposed with huge amounts of space ceded in front of him and that wasn't his fault. Blame the midfield being pulled out of shape. So what if both goals came from crosses from the right. Look at them again and come back with a sensible statement. The only reasonable comment you make is that theres no one dominant at the heart of the defense but thats because we don't have a player with much experience and Terry wasn't up for selection, Rio's backs gone, so what on earth do you expect!! Or were you expecting them to perform like a settled back five with over three hundred caps between them and a wealth of understanding of each others play and movement?

there was no midfield. starting rooney on the left in that formation was madness and suicidal. he's incapable of defending, isn't fit enough and lacks discipline. so the whole first half italy's rightback darmian had acres to play in and baines was often left two on one. baines and gerrard were screaming at rooney all first half to track back and to stop wide with his man but he just didn't and played too far infield. shocking rubbish, and the manager then tried to address this in the second half by taking england's best attacking threat, sterling, and playing him wide to accommodate rooney in the middle.

i don't understand why he seems to be untouchable, he is not that good. maybe it's contractual that he has to start and finish every england match. yeah nice cross for the goal but there are plenty of others who could have done that. his inclusion felt like england played most of the match with ten men.

oh and with every substitution england got more shapeless and more disorganized. subs are supposed to impact positively on a game, hodgson's just made it more muddled.

good players in this squad, exciting, attacking, pacy players. manager hasn't a bloody clue still though and seems to be getting a pretty free ride in the press this morning.

[carmine]

Thing is stevie, we all saw the damage caused to us by having Rooney on the left and in my views already posted i'd drop him. It was also plain to see Gerrard lacking the required cover. I'ce commented on it, you and others too on here have commented similar so perhaps with a few video replays he will sort out the left side nightmare created for Baines and free up Gerrard with more cover to allow him to do what he's positioned to do.

Have to wait and see.

[StevieH]

it was obvious to anyone with eyes in that first half that darmian and candreva were getting acres of space, baines had two men to deal with and this pulled the rest of england's defence apart.

like you say, before the match we knew that italy would have three in the centre of midfield and hodgson would only play two. meaning england get overrun. if you start milner and henderson alongside gerrard, milner and henderson in the three can split wide and help the fullbacks out in dealing with italy's wide lads. you pack the midfield out more and concede less space. then up front you have the pace and movement of sturridge, sterling and welbeck (who i thought had a decent game).

rooney remains the elephant in the room. 28, still nobody really knows what his best position is, unfit, runs around wheezing like a chubby asthmatic kid in the school playground. so he's a passenger in a team that wants to play with some tactical discipline. but then we're back to roy again.

oh and jack wilshere is the most overrated footballer i've seen in years. doing that classic english thing of show promise, score a couple of flashy goals, get enormous praise, get overhyped and completely forget what got you to here in the first place. lazy and spoiled.

press seem to be going with the "brave", "attacking" and "unlucky" line this morning. italy won. they were organised, smart and had a plan.

[Scottish Gary]

From what i saw yesterday i think Engerland are capable of beating Uruguay. I can see a shoot out with Costa Rica to see who joins Italy in the next round.

[7by7]

[rixalex]

good players in this squad, exciting, attacking, pacy players. manager hasn't a bloody clue still though and seems to be getting a pretty free ride in the press this morning.

It's not that he's getting a free ride, it's that not everybody has their starting point on every comment they make on England as the manager is a complete Kuhn t, the supporters racist idiots, and the players, bar of course Liverpool ones, overrated, overpaid nonces. You are completely intent on only ever seeing the negatives, and would still be no doubt droning on about them if we won the blasted thing.

[StevieH]

good players in this squad, exciting, attacking, pacy players. manager hasn't a bloody clue still though and seems to be getting a pretty free ride in the press this morning.

It's not that he's getting a free ride, it's that not everybody has their starting point on every comment they make on England as the manager is a complete Kuhn t, the supporters racist idiots, and the players, bar of course Liverpool ones, overrated, overpaid nonces. You are completely intent on only ever seeing the negatives, and would still be no doubt droning on about them if we won the blasted thing.

Give over rix, you sound very silly here. I've given plenty of positives about this england squad, am being constructive with the criticism, and its you who appears not to want to talk about what you saw on the pitch.

If you want to have a pop at me at least try and make it accurate will you? Otherwise do pipe down.

[rixalex]

good players in this squad, exciting, attacking, pacy players. manager hasn't a bloody clue still though and seems to be getting a pretty free ride in the press this morning.

It's not that he's getting a free ride, it's that not everybody has their starting point on every comment they make on England as the manager is a complete Kuhn t, the supporters racist idiots, and the players, bar of course Liverpool ones, overrated, overpaid nonces. You are completely intent on only ever seeing the negatives, and would still be no doubt droning on about them if we won the blasted thing.

Give over rix, you sound very silly here. I've given plenty of positives about this england squad, am being constructive with the criticism, and its you who appears not to want to talk about what you saw on the pitch.

If you want to have a pop at me at least try and make it accurate will you? Otherwise do pipe down.

Plenty of positives? LOL. Must have missed all of them, unless you mean the ones praising Liverpool players. Sorry Stevie, I just find your stance on all things English, outside of Merseyside, ridiculously biased against.

I've given my take on what happened on the pitch. One of the liveliest and attack minded approaches I have ever seen England take to the first game of a World Cup tournament. That we didn't win is obviously not good, but I feel, as it seems does a lot of the rest of the country, that there was a lot of promise and a lot of positives... more promise and more positives indeed than in other years when we have won or drawn or first game, but played in a dour drab fashion.. see the last World Cup if you want reminding of that.

[7by7]

I am not a regular football supporter. I don't even regularly support a team; although I do keep an eye on Woking's results in the vain hope that they may one day get promoted out of the Conference, or whatever it's called at the moment.

Therefore I admit that I don't know a lot about football.

However, watching the game last night it seemed to me that, despite losing, England had the better game; their problem being that they could not convert their chances.

The statistics seem to confirm this:

• Shots; England 18, Italy 13
• Shots on target; England 5, Italy 4
• Corners; England 9, Italy 2

(source)

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams.

[Mooner]

Thought we did ok. Created a few chances and played better football than we have in previous tournaments. The positive thing was the Costa Rica's win. Just need to win the next two.

[RickBradford]

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams

Mathematically, it is possible for England to lose to Uruguay and still qualify.

Assume Italy wins all 3 games for 9 points.

Then, in the other matches, Costa Rica beats Uruguay (done), Uruguay beats England, and England beats Costa Rica. All those teams finish on 3 points and it comes down to goal difference.

[P45Mustang]

I am not a regular football supporter. I don't even regularly support a team; although I do keep an eye on Woking's results in the vain hope that they may one day get promoted out of the Conference, or whatever it's called at the moment.

Therefore I admit that I don't know a lot about football.

However, watching the game last night it seemed to me that, despite losing, England had the better game; their problem being that they could not convert their chances.

The statistics seem to confirm this:

• Shots; England 18, Italy 13
• Shots on target; England 5, Italy 4
• Corners; England 9, Italy 2

(source)

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams.

Best stick to cricket then matey.

Because we've seen the engines running gag before.

Roy Hodgson doesn't need Geoffrey Boycott's help either btw.

[carmine]

I am not a regular football supporter. I don't even regularly support a team; although I do keep an eye on Woking's results in the vain hope that they may one day get promoted out of the Conference, or whatever it's called at the moment.

Therefore I admit that I don't know a lot about football.

However, watching the game last night it seemed to me that, despite losing, England had the better game; their problem being that they could not convert their chances.

The statistics seem to confirm this:

• Shots; England 18, Italy 13
• Shots on target; England 5, Italy 4
• Corners; England 9, Italy 2

(source)

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams.

Good post. The stats don't lie do they but unfortunately the Italiens, as usual were very disciplined and had a tight game plan that they stuck to rigidly. Add to that a very poor miss by Rooney and there you have it.

But going back to the stats, the do suggest we have hope playing the other two in our group.

[bigbamboo]

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams

Mathematically, it is possible for England to lose to Uruguay and still qualify.

Assume Italy wins all 3 games for 9 points.

Then, in the other matches, Costa Rica beats Uruguay (done), Uruguay beats England, and England beats Costa Rica. All those teams finish on 3 points and it comes down to goal difference.

The problem with that theory is that if Italy beat Coast Rica they're home and hosed. If Uruguay beat England then Italy will only need a draw against Uruguay to top the group and eliminate (in the words of the Italian coach) one of the tournaments biggest threats.

And if any team in world football can play for a draw it's Italy.

[iancnx]

After watching the Uraguay v Costa Rica game it is clear neither team are in the same class as England. I predict the group will finish like this:

Italy 9

England 6

Costa Rica 3

Uraguay 0

[iancnx]

All eyes on group C

[P45Mustang]

Quite possible.

Everybody in the know, like redknapp and others, are saying play Rooney behind Sturridge. or not at all.

Sterling can do his damage from the right.

Interesting to see what Roy does on Thursday.

[stevenl]

I am not a regular football supporter. I don't even regularly support a team; although I do keep an eye on Woking's results in the vain hope that they may one day get promoted out of the Conference, or whatever it's called at the moment.

Therefore I admit that I don't know a lot about football.

However, watching the game last night it seemed to me that, despite losing, England had the better game; their problem being that they could not convert their chances.

The statistics seem to confirm this:

• Shots; England 18, Italy 13
• Shots on target; England 5, Italy 4
• Corners; England 9, Italy 2

(source)

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams.

Stats are very important for baseball, but mean far less for football. The Italians don't mind at all giving corners away, or 'chances' from nearly impossible angles or distances. They hardly give any real chances away.

So looking at those stats England was the better team, still they had virtually no chance of winning the game. Stats do lie.

[P45Mustang]

Yep. Correct.

Lies, damned lies and stats.

Check out the numbers from yesterday's Argentina game.

Btw, there is a body of opinion that is suggesting Spanish tika-taka is possibly becoming outdated. Witness the Dutch game.

Possession stats may be highly misleading because the manager of Atletico Madrid who won La Liga says "We control space, not possession"

Interesting articulation of a concept eh?

We may be seeing an evolution of how the game of football is most successfully played.

[jellydog]

I am not a regular football supporter. I don't even regularly support a team; although I do keep an eye on Woking's results in the vain hope that they may one day get promoted out of the Conference, or whatever it's called at the moment.

Therefore I admit that I don't know a lot about football.

However, watching the game last night it seemed to me that, despite losing, England had the better game; their problem being that they could not convert their chances.

The statistics seem to confirm this:

• Shots; England 18, Italy 13
• Shots on target; England 5, Italy 4
• Corners; England 9, Italy 2

(source)

The next game against Uruguay is obviously a crucial, must win game; for both teams.

Stats are very important for baseball, but mean far less for football. The Italians don't mind at all giving corners away, or 'chances' from nearly impossible angles or distances. They hardly give any real chances away.

So looking at those stats England was the better team, still they had virtually no chance of winning the game. Stats do lie.

Stats may be more important in baseball but not that important. Its just that the current crop of baseball commentators like to talk about them non stop, and baseball oriented sports shows like to invite tweeting morons to comment on them ad nauseam. ESPN started the current insane obsession with baseball stats years ago. I hate them for it.