England v Belgium Friendly

First topic message reminder :

Should be a good 'un. I'll say 3-1 England. Be interesting to see how Hazard does.

i can only think of cole in fairness as motm- that or welbeck as he was the difference between the sides. gerrard lol what a joke

that speed from walcott was pretty special- and made it count

Gerrard basically won motm for the same reason he makes the starting 11.

I.e his name

So what are we ranking England after this?

I'll give em a 6/10.

Woeful game.

Based on the last 2 friendlies do you think England will get out of their group?

6.5: Defensively very good, look very sub standard going forward esp without Rooney

in both games and hodgsons reign

defence and goalie 10/10
creativity 5/10

We can prob beat Sweden and Ukraine 1-0. France might be ugly

Wish I was an official England supporter, William Hill is so lucky

I thought the defence was decent (albeit against a very toothless Belgian attack). There is absolutely no flair in the England team to spark them into life though. Fellaini looked dangerous all game and was controlled well.

Another 1-0 then. We'll be difficult to beat, I have no doubts about that. Creativity wise, things can only get better. And they will get better. This time in 9 days we'll know how we did against the French and I reckon it'll be a tight 1-0 victory. Here's the team I would start against the French:

Hart

Johnson
Cahill
Terry
Cole

Milner
Gerrard
Parker
Oxlade-Chamberlain

Young
Welbeck

Which is exactly the XI we played today!

reminds me abit of the first two england rugby games in the 6 nations under new management- all about shape to start withl, we started playing decent after them two- i am hopeing thats a good omen!

Put Milner inside, drop Gerrard, start Walcott.

We won't drop our captain GSC, and after his good performance today there's no reason why we should.

If Belgium had a decent striker I don't think we would be drooling over the England defence as much as we are now. That said, two clean sheets and two wins suggests their doing something right.

Good?

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Good?

Yes good in the adjective sense of having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.

When he distinguishes himself let me know. Utterly anonymous today

Apart from when he won the ball from Dembele leading to our only goal; he distinguished himself then.

The one shining light is that most of the other countries heading into the Euros have been pretty poor too.

Italy lost 3-0 to Russia last night - wonder if they're as negative as some of our fans?

Gerrard is a shadow of the player he once was, injuries have played their part no doubt. However, is there anyone putting their hand up to say they deserve a starting place in cm, I think not. So, Steven should start and he can always pull something out of the bag but he looks very laboured atm and non-existent on occasions in the two friendlies so far.

Hero wrote:The one shining light is that most of the other countries heading into the Euros have been pretty poor too.

This is the thing with friendlies, they serve minimal purpose and don't really show us anything.

Duty281 wrote:Italy lost 3-0 to Russia last night - wonder if they're as negative as some of our fans?

Yes but in fairness they have been rocked by a match fixing scandal and there has been talk of banning the national team, not to mention their lb having to be dropped due to his possible involvement in it all. So I don't think you can read to much into that much if i'm honest. The game was also played in Zurich.

we love to praise what we dont know or cant do in this country.

Mark my words on this- defense is as important as attack in this game.

and i dont think i am being over the top to suggest i cant think of a better one in the comp.(remember we also have 3 cl winning defenders in there as well)

martyr_94 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Italy lost 3-0 to Russia last night - wonder if they're as negative as some of our fans?

Yes but in fairness they have been rocked by a match fixing scandal and there has been talk of banning the national team, not to mention their lb having to be dropped due to his possible involvement in it all. So I don't think you can read to much into that much if i'm honest. The game was also played in Zurich.

Adversity worked in the Italians favour in 2006. Are we right to completely write them off?

mystiroakey wrote:we love to praise what we dont know or cant do in this country.

Mark my words on this- defense is as important as attack in this game.

and i dont think i am being over the top to suggest i cant think of a better one in the comp.(remember we also have 3 cl winning defenders in there as well)

Good point mystri. Can't argue with successive clean sheets that's for sure. If you don't concede you have half a chance.

He made 1 contribution in 90 minutes, that being a tackle after Welbeck applied pressure.

Steven Gerrard rolling back the years.

Just wonder how the defense will do against teams with a goal threat, you can't continually let the likes of France attack you over and over again.

Hero wrote:The one shining light is that most of the other countries heading into the Euros have been pretty poor too.

Aside from the Dutch, that are 4-0 up at halftime vs Northern Ireland

Ent wrote:Just wonder how the defense will do against teams with a goal threat, you can't continually let the likes of France attack you over and over again.

Our only hope is to scrape a 1-0 vs Sweden and hope Rooney rediscovers his Euro 2004 form. 1 shot on target vs Belgium at home, albeit a goal, makes pretty grim reading.

mystiroakey wrote:we love to praise what we dont know or cant do in this country.

Mark my words on this- defense is as important as attack in this game.

and i dont think i am being over the top to suggest i cant think of a better one in the comp.(remember we also have 3 cl winning defenders in there as well)

Excellent point and we have one of the greatest keepers in the World as well. France will not score against us.

Nice to see GSC and Ent are on the same page as me. I've been making this argument against Myst for the past 2 hours!

Honestly I really don't want to be negative, but this is the first time I can honestly say I've gone into a major tournament thinking England just can't compete period.

(Euro 2008 aside obv)

What argument is that then?

In fairness i have ni idea what u are talking about

If you were a neutral watching and were told the 7th ranked team was playing the 44th ranked team at home you'd think Belgium were ranked 7th.

mystiroakey wrote:What argument is that then?

In fairness i have ni idea what u are talking about

You can always go back through the older posts and read what I was saying to you or just read what Ent and GSC was saying

I cant see a point in what you have said. its just cliched nonsense. better teams are.better. they win because they are better.

However if you wanna try and beat the better team you have to negate there threat and concentrate on your own strenghs

Spain have won 2 tournaments the last 4 years, Germany and Holland have each played in a final.

England's best placed finish in that period is last 16.

Without even judging on performances they're miles better. Or the time Germany smashed us 4-1.

Correct they are

Your spot on Mys, you play to your strengths. I have said this. England can and will never play the Spain way, they don't have the players to. They are playing in a way where, its not great on the eye but its effective against the likes of Norway and Belgium.

However, my point about possession was that, for one I was not saying that to win intl games of football you are required to have 60-70% possession, but you need to be able to keep the ball for sustained periods in the game to build some pressure. England have got an effective game plan atm, but they are giving the ball away far too cheaply. They won't be able to get away with it against the better sides.

Onto the better sides, you make out that the coaches look at the star players and just tell them to go out and sooner or later, one of the stars WILL just do something at some point, no game plan. But each side is able to retain possession of the football, all the best sides do, they are able to retain possession when its needed. If you keep giving the ball away like England are doing, its impossible to build pressure against the best teams. If England concede against one of the better sides, that's it, lights out because they would need to chase the game

You cannot win international games of football if you give away possession cheaply, like England are doing atm.

I think, if they get out of their group, it will be a massive achievement by Roy and his side imo.

Honestly, forget France. When Sweden and Ukraine watch both England games over are they going to be unduly worried? Good defensively yes, but in terms of their own defenses keep your concentration and you wont have an issue.

"Onto the better sides, you make out that the coaches look at the star
players and just tell them to go out and sooner or later, one of the
stars WILL just do something at some point, no game plan. But each side
is able to retain possession of the football, all the best sides do,
they are able to retain possession when its needed. If you keep giving
the ball away like England are doing, its impossible to build pressure
against the best teams. If England concede against one of the better
sides, that's it, lights out because they would need to chase the game"

what the heck are you on about. What makes you think i have made any of that out??

It seems to me you are just ranting for no reason at all in fairness

Mys, earlier you sad the better teams are better because they just are. Its not quite as simple as that though is it, every team has a game plan, and know that if they keep giving the ball away, they won't win because at intl level, where there is no hiding, you will get punished. That was my point. England would lose to better sides not just because they have better players, but if they just kept gifting posession away, that's all mate

GSC - englands stregths lie on two very basic footballing attributes. Finishing(goals per chances ratio) and defense. At present we have nothing to talk of a midfield- The only way we get chances is by almost completly by passing midfield and playing a medium ball to a fast runner- that thankfully can finish.

We are a relatively clinical team. If we are going to do well in this tourny we need mush more creativity and much more cohesion. We are not an amazing team, but we are a very tough team to beat. Will we do well- i doubt it unless we improve ten fold.

I dont understand why tmatyr is stating that i have ever said anything different from the above- but its kind of annoying to be so misquoted just becasue i have mentioned that he uses cliches that mean zip and exagerattes points,

Just got in from watching another shocking England performance. Basically getting out of the group will be a fantastic achievement for Roy. You can see why Belgium didn't qualify as they have absolutely no geniune striker who can poses a goal-threat. Hazard was particulary disappointing and you can see why he's only scored two goals in twenty-odd games for Belgium.

As for England this strategy works against the poor teams but if we go behind early then this way of thinking goes out the window and we will become extremely open in attempt to press forward for an equaliser. This win 1-0 strategy works in the Europa League against poor opposition but you will be easily unlocked against quality star studded teams like France, Spain & Germany.

Things learnt today
1. Glen Johnson can't defend
2. Gerrard's legs have gone
3. Way too early for Oxlade
4. It's painful to watch England
5. We're not very good
6. Why is Adam Johnson & Richards sitting at home

mystiroakey wrote:GSC - englands stregths lie on two very basic footballing attributes. Finishing(goals per chances ratio) and defense. At present we have nothing to talk of a midfield- The only way we get chances is by almost completly by passing midfield and playing a medium ball to a fast runner- that thankfully can finish.

We are a relatively clinical team. If we are going to do well in this tourny we need mush more creativity and much more cohesion. We are not an amazing team, but we are a very tough team to beat. Will we do well- i doubt it unless we improve ten fold.

I dont understand why tmatyr is stating that i have ever said anything different from the above- but its kind of annoying to be so misquoted just becasue i have mentioned that he uses cliches that mean zip and exagerattes points,

Dear me Mys, hardly exaggerated tonight. I have simply said England give the ball away cheaply, and they will get punished against the better sides, you just chose to somewhat overlook that completely. GSC and Ent have both made these points, I don't see them exaggerating.

Anyway, I think we somewhat agree in the end, England need to improve but its not gonna happen in the space of a week is it.

We had 1 shot on target against supposedly inferior opposition at home.

There is playing to your strengths and just not being very good. I can accept they want to soak up pressure and play on the break. Unfortunately we look very toothless against average defenses this way

martyr_94 wrote:Mys, earlier you sad the better teams are better because they just are. Its not quite as simple as that though is it, every team has a game plan, and know that if they keep giving the ball away, they won't win because at intl level, where there is no hiding, you will get punished. That was my point. England would lose to better sides not just because they have better players, but if they just kept gifting posession away, that's all mate

no it really is 100% that simple, better teams win more.

dont assume that england want to give the ball away orthat it is there game plane- they dont and it isnt!! they are just playing in that respect badly, they need to sort that out if they want to get a decent finish in this tourny.

martyr_94 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:GSC - englands stregths lie on two very basic footballing attributes. Finishing(goals per chances ratio) and defense. At present we have nothing to talk of a midfield- The only way we get chances is by almost completly by passing midfield and playing a medium ball to a fast runner- that thankfully can finish.

We are a relatively clinical team. If we are going to do well in this tourny we need mush more creativity and much more cohesion. We are not an amazing team, but we are a very tough team to beat. Will we do well- i doubt it unless we improve ten fold.

I dont understand why tmatyr is stating that i have ever said anything different from the above- but its kind of annoying to be so misquoted just becasue i have mentioned that he uses cliches that mean zip and exagerattes points,

Dear me Mys, hardly exaggerated tonight. I have simply said England give the ball away cheaply, and they will get punished against the better sides, you just chose to somewhat overlook that completely. GSC and Ent have both made these points, I don't see them exaggerating.

Anyway, I think we somewhat agree in the end, England need to improve but its not gonna happen in the space of a week is it.

martyr we went through the exageration point earlier! that has nothing to do with your cliches!