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.

Duty281 wrote:Right so two games into a new manager's reign. We've won both friendlies 1-0, absent of our best striker bar the half hour or so he played against Belgium. We're missing loads of players through injury - Barry, Wilshere, Lampard, Rodwell, Bent and Ruddy. Despite this we haven't conceded any goals in 180 minutes or even looked like conceding because our defence is up there with the best in Europe. The signs look bright - I can't see France scoring against us - yet most England fans are having a good 'ol moan about the lack of creativity we possess. Two words lads - Belief and Positivity.

England 1-0 France

Why can't you see France scoring against you, England haven't been tested defensively yet. You are right that England have looked good in defense but you would expect that against Belgium and Norway. France will have:

Benzema
Ribery
Ben Arfa
Cabaye
Valbeuna
Menez
Nasri

All these are capable of pulling something out of the bag and are a different calibre of opposition all together.

Seems like not for the first time me and GSC are the only realistic one's in this debate.

Also on the not much has changed since Germany two years ago. Here is the starting team from that game.

James, Johnson, Terry, Upson, Ashley Cole, Milner, Lampard, Barry, Gerrard, Defoe, Rooney.

A lot has changed from that team. For a start we now have Hart who is one of the world's best GK's. Upson . Different formation where we don't have one of our best players (Gerrard) playing left mid.

So the fact that 3 out of the 4 in our defence won the Champions League this season doesn't give us confidence in our defence? I have every confidence that our defence will be fine

Well GSC, Portugal played quite a few first team players and got stuffed 1-3 to Turkey. What do you say about them?

If you say a team "misses Gareth Barry" they must not be very good. What does Gareth Barry actually do?

TSC wrote:If you say a team "misses Gareth Barry" they must not be very good. What does Gareth Barry actually do?

Pretends to contribute to the Premier League winning side!

martyr_94 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Right so two games into a new manager's reign. We've won both friendlies 1-0, absent of our best striker bar the half hour or so he played against Belgium. We're missing loads of players through injury - Barry, Wilshere, Lampard, Rodwell, Bent and Ruddy. Despite this we haven't conceded any goals in 180 minutes or even looked like conceding because our defence is up there with the best in Europe. The signs look bright - I can't see France scoring against us - yet most England fans are having a good 'ol moan about the lack of creativity we possess. Two words lads - Belief and Positivity.

England 1-0 France

Why can't you see France scoring against you, England haven't been tested defensively yet. You are right that England have looked good in defense but you would expect that against Belgium and Norway. France will have:

Benzema
Ribery
Ben Arfa
Cabaye
Valbeuna
Menez
Nasri

All these are capable of pulling something out of the bag and are a different calibre of opposition all together.

3 out of 4 of our defence won the Champions League and FA Cup this season. And we have one of the best keepers in the World.

TSC wrote:If you say a team "misses Gareth Barry" they must not be very good. What does Gareth Barry actually do?

I would rather have Barry than Henderson.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Theres positivity and theres blind faith I'm afraid.

Well I am a Norwich fan. All I have is blind faith.

Duty281 wrote:

martyr_94 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Right so two games into a new manager's reign. We've won both friendlies 1-0, absent of our best striker bar the half hour or so he played against Belgium. We're missing loads of players through injury - Barry, Wilshere, Lampard, Rodwell, Bent and Ruddy. Despite this we haven't conceded any goals in 180 minutes or even looked like conceding because our defence is up there with the best in Europe. The signs look bright - I can't see France scoring against us - yet most England fans are having a good 'ol moan about the lack of creativity we possess. Two words lads - Belief and Positivity.

England 1-0 France

Why can't you see France scoring against you, England haven't been tested defensively yet. You are right that England have looked good in defense but you would expect that against Belgium and Norway. France will have:

Benzema
Ribery
Ben Arfa
Cabaye
Valbeuna
Menez
Nasri

All these are capable of pulling something out of the bag and are a different calibre of opposition all together.

3 out of 4 of our defence won the Champions League and FA Cup this season. And we have one of the best keepers in the World.

Terry has been poor this season, he almost cost his side the trophy. I think people read too much into Chelsea's defending. They defended well yes, but its not like they limited both Barca and Bayern too long range attempts. Barca had about 2/3 goal scoring chances in the first leg but didn't take them, and if the same in the second leg. Bayern, if Gomez had his goal scoring boots on, would have wiped the floor with them.

England are not going to defend as extreme as Chelsea are either I wouldn't have thought.

fair play to turkey, we're talking about England though. Who have been poor vs meh teams.

olly the tractor boy wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Theres positivity and theres blind faith I'm afraid.

Well I am a Norwich fan. All I have is blind faith.

I'm a Forest fan, I have neither.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:fair play to turkey, we're talking about England though. Who have been poor vs meh teams.

Well who is to say we won't up our game vs good teams?

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:fair play to turkey, we're talking about England though. Who have been poor vs meh teams.

Intensity and will-to-win in a friendly is about half of what it is in a real, competetive fixture. Have no worries, England will step it up against the French, just like any other team that been doing average in the friendlies.

People seem to be applying what Chelsea did in Barca and Munich and thinking that works usually. It doesn't.

9/10 times Chelsea gets smashed in the Nou Camp

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:People seem to be applying what Chelsea did in Barca and Munich and thinking that works usually. It doesn't.

9/10 times Chelsea gets smashed in the Nou Camp

Messi missed a penalty as we all know. People forget about that.

TSC wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:People seem to be applying what Chelsea did in Barca and Munich and thinking that works usually. It doesn't.

9/10 times Chelsea gets smashed in the Nou Camp

Messi missed a penalty as we all know. People forget about that.

Which was justice for Fabregas' dive.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:People seem to be applying what Chelsea did in Barca and Munich and thinking that works usually. It doesn't.

9/10 times Chelsea gets smashed in the Nou Camp

If it wasn't for bad luck and wasteful chances, both Bayern and Barca would have wiped the floor with Chelsea. People seem to forget that although they did defend well Chelsea, they weren't some impenetrable force. Bayern had 34 shots and 21 on target, their main striker missed a handful of chances which he would normally bury. Barca were also wasteful, with Fab missing a real good chance, and bad luck also played its part, when they hit the woodwork twice in the first leg also.

Aye.

I mean christ, they came back from 2-0 down with 10 men to draw 2-2 at the Nou Camp.

If that doesn't tell you how lucky they got nothing will.

Duty281 wrote:

TSC wrote:

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:People seem to be applying what Chelsea did in Barca and Munich and thinking that works usually. It doesn't.

9/10 times Chelsea gets smashed in the Nou Camp

Messi missed a penalty as we all know. People forget about that.

Which was justice for Fabregas' dive.

He still missed a penalty which makes it 3-1 and probably kills Chelsea off

Don't get me wrong I am not saying we will win the whole thing. Hell we might not even get out of the group. But what I will say at the end of the day, it is 11 v 11, anything can happen.

Apart from Duty281, nobody is saying we're going to win it. But we're more than capable of getting out of our group, if not winning our group.

Also, does anyone in this team look capable of matching Ramires' goal?

Crimey wrote:Apart from Duty281, nobody is saying we're going to win it. But we're more than capable of getting out of our group, if not winning our group.

No one's saying people ARE saying that. England are more than capable of getting out of the group, but if they play like this, they will struggle big time.

Crimey.....

Winning the group? Jeez its gone from optimism to absolute laughable suggestions now.

You think we will win our group? Really? Im going to put it here now and if im right I expect alot of applause this is how our campaign will play out...

vs France: Lose 2-0
vs Sweden: Draw 1-1
vs Ukraine: Draw 1-1

England to finish 3rd and exit the group.

Also as a seperate note I expect Croatia to advance with Spain out of group C and I think Germany will win the tournament.

Honestly, I don't think we're any better than Sweden or Ukraine.

owen10ozzy wrote:

olly the tractor boy Today at 10:57 am

To even say Hodgson isn't good enough for international level is quite frankly rubbish. You can't just dismiss what he done with the Swiss. Who else would we have got? Redknapp? At least Hodgson can set out a team that knows how to defend well, Redknapp is a very poor tactical manager.

Im not dismissing what Hodgson has done with Switzerland. He was fantastic and I said that...if you read my statement properly then you would have noticed that what I said was ..

'THE INTERNATIONAL GAME HAS MOVED ON IN THE LAST 8 YEARS..NEVER MIND 20 (WHICH IS WHEN ROY MADE HIS MARK).'

He has shown me nothing albeit in his brief time with England so far to suggest he has the quality to manage in the current International climate. When you have to be flexible with tactics and your approach to the game. He is a rigid 4-4-2 man and will not change his ideas and philosophies. It may well work for WBA, Fulham etc but it will not work at the very highest level.

England will be shown up at the EURO's its as simple as that. People can come at us 'negative' fans all they like with blinded optimisn, passion and pride but as an actual argument and topic of discussion the simple fact of the matter is that England have shown nothing over the past 10 years to suggest we are capable of winning a major international tournament.

Roy is being sensible and playing to our strengths which is defence. We can soak up pressure and then hit the opposition on the counter. 2 wins out of 2, against one team who hadn't lost at home for 2 years and another team who have only lost 1 out of their last 16, and we're having a moan. We will beat France, we will top the group and we will win the damn tournament.

owen10ozzy wrote:

olly the tractor boy Today at 10:57 am

To even say Hodgson isn't good enough for international level is quite frankly rubbish. You can't just dismiss what he done with the Swiss. Who else would we have got? Redknapp? At least Hodgson can set out a team that knows how to defend well, Redknapp is a very poor tactical manager.

Im not dismissing what Hodgson has done with Switzerland. He was fantastic and I said that...if you read my statement properly then you would have noticed that what I said was ..

'THE INTERNATIONAL GAME HAS MOVED ON IN THE LAST 8 YEARS..NEVER MIND 20 (WHICH IS WHEN ROY MADE HIS MARK).'

He has shown me nothing albeit in his brief time with England so far to suggest he has the quality to manage in the current International climate. When you have to be flexible with tactics and your approach to the game. He is a rigid 4-4-2 man and will not change his ideas and philosophies. It may well work for WBA, Fulham etc but it will not work at the very highest level.

England will be shown up at the EURO's its as simple as that. People can come at us 'negative' fans all they like with blinded optimisn, passion and pride but as an actual argument and topic of discussion the simple fact of the matter is that England have shown nothing over the past 10 years to suggest we are capable of winning a major international tournament.

But so far Hodgson has played 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-3

martyr_94 wrote:

Crimey wrote:Apart from Duty281, nobody is saying we're going to win it. But we're more than capable of getting out of our group, if not winning our group.

No one's saying people ARE saying that. England are more than capable of getting out of the group, but if they play like this, they will struggle big time.

If they play like what?? THEY HAVE WON THE TWO GAMES!! Who gives one how bad we play??? Who is to say we can play as badly as we have and still beat France, Sweden and Ukraine??? Why do we have to improve dramatically to beat these teams??

Whats laughable about saying we can win the group.. what the heck is going on here. its quite normal for england to get out of groups. We are also in a relatively easy one

I'm guessing everyone was expecting us to thrash Norway and Belgium 3-0 or something without realising that Norway and Belgium are decent teams. It's not like the '06 World Cup warm-up against Jamaica where we won 6-0, Crouchy was doing that robot dance and England were going to win the World Cup. Norway and Belgium are decent sides.

I'm not upset about the result, I'm upset about the performance. We aren't going to keep 6 clean sheets this summer, and we don't look capable of doing more than nicking the odd goal going forward

Be fair to Roy, he's not got much quality to work with at the moment.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:I'm not upset about the result, I'm upset about the performance. We aren't going to keep 6 clean sheets this summer, and we don't look capable of doing more than nicking the odd goal going forward

The more the team plays together the more fluid we will become in an attacking sense. I don't expect us to keep 6 clean sheets either, but I don't expect us to be poor attacking wise every game. I think we can make it out of the group, any further is a bonus

TSC wrote:Be fair to Roy, he's not got much quality to work with at the moment.

Or time

owen10ozzy wrote:Crimey.....

Winning the group? Jeez its gone from optimism to absolute laughable suggestions now.

You think we will win our group? Really? Im going to put it here now and if im right I expect alot of applause this is how our campaign will play out...

vs France: Lose 2-0
vs Sweden: Draw 1-1
vs Ukraine: Draw 1-1

England to finish 3rd and exit the group.

Also as a seperate note I expect Croatia to advance with Spain out of group C and I think Germany will win the tournament.

Oo, look I can do that too!

vs France: Win 1-0
vs Sweden: Win 2-1
vs. Ukraine: Win 1-0

Now we finish 1st and go into the next round.

We're more than capable of winning those three games. We won't dominate them, and we won't score 3,4 goals, but we are capable of winning those games.

TSC wrote:Be fair to Roy, he's not got much quality to work with at the moment.

I'm giving Roy a free pass for this tournament, his real work begins next season.

I knew that would be your response...against Norway he essentially played Young as a #10 and up alongside Carroll.

I know what you mean whilst it is to say we have played 4-3-3 if you actually look at the shape of the team during the games what we actually play is 4-4-2. We are not lining up with loads of width, which is what you have in a 4-3-3 and Gerrard is not far enough forward to suggest we are playing a 4-4-1-1. Seriously watch back the two games and England have played as a 4-4-2 formation regardless of how ITV/SKY show the side on the screen before kick off.

England need to be playing Parker deep just sat infront of the defence and then have Milner (no other option sadly) playing alongside him with the freedom to push on a little.

Then have Carroll (until Rooney comes back) playing up front with Gerrard playing the free role behind him and Young & Walcott out on the wings. Get them out wide and provide plenty of pace and do not put the onious on them coming back and defending all the time.

CRIMEY - Showing your intelligence I see..Everyone can do it but my post was actually what Im saying will happen. You want to go on record with those predictions? England will also be an average team as long as people like you are happy to sit and accept it. Your one of the 'typical' England fans who are on forums and in the pubs saying we can do this and we can do that before the tournament gets underway and then when the usual happens and we underperform you will be back whining about this that and the other and begin calls to get rid of the manager etc essentially jumping on any bandwagon that comes along.

At least I am forthright and consistent in my views on the England team and how they will perform and what I expect from them. In 2 weeks time you will be slating the England team because its the 'thing' to do where as I express my negativity not because its the consensus but because the facts are in front of anyone who wishes to actually look at them. We may be the 'home' of football but we are an average international side who just squeeze into the top 20 in the world let alone the top 8!

The team yesterday was this

olly the tractor boy wrote:

martyr_94 wrote:

Crimey wrote:Apart from Duty281, nobody is saying we're going to win it. But we're more than capable of getting out of our group, if not winning our group.

No one's saying people ARE saying that. England are more than capable of getting out of the group, but if they play like this, they will struggle big time.

If they play like what?? THEY HAVE WON THE TWO GAMES!! Who gives one how bad we play??? Who is to say we can play as badly as we have and still beat France, Sweden and Ukraine??? Why do we have to improve dramatically to beat these teams??

Oh for god sake Olly, England have played better than they have currently and lost. Yes, they have two games and kept two clean sheets, but as much as people will look at Belgium and Norway and say, hey, they are decent sides, I am comparing them to the teams in the Euro's now. Both Belgium and Norway didn't have a striker to stick the ball in the back of the net, France (Benzema) and Sweden (Ibra) do have people who are natural goal scorers. You have to be realistic. Although, football's a funny o'l game.

For all intents and purposes Youngs a 2nd striker and its basically 4-4-2.

martyr_94 wrote:

olly the tractor boy wrote:

martyr_94 wrote:

Crimey wrote:Apart from Duty281, nobody is saying we're going to win it. But we're more than capable of getting out of our group, if not winning our group.

No one's saying people ARE saying that. England are more than capable of getting out of the group, but if they play like this, they will struggle big time.

If they play like what?? THEY HAVE WON THE TWO GAMES!! Who gives one how bad we play??? Who is to say we can play as badly as we have and still beat France, Sweden and Ukraine??? Why do we have to improve dramatically to beat these teams??

Oh for god sake Olly, England have played better than they have currently and lost. Yes, they have two games and kept two clean sheets, but as much as people will look at Belgium and Norway and say, hey, they are decent sides, I am comparing them to the teams in the Euro's now. Both Belgium and Norway didn't have a striker to stick the ball in the back of the net, France (Benzema) and Sweden (Ibra) do have people who are natural goal scorers. You have to be realistic. Although, football's a funny o'l game.

I am being realistic! I can't see how Sweden are better than us. They have Ibrahimovic yes but as a team are they better? France I will admit are a better side and we will be doing well to get a draw from that game. Ukraine we should be able to beat as well

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:For all intents and purposes Youngs a 2nd striker and its basically 4-4-2.

It is when we are going forward, but what Roy has done defensively is gotten Young back in to try and create a three in midfield. Young would be on the defensive mid.

You guys are overstating the point of friendlies. They're much more about performances than results.

The itv guys stated yesterday that Young wasn't really dropping back.

(Then again they did peg Gerrard as man of the match)

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The itv guys stated yesterday that Young wasn't really dropping back.

(Then again they did peg Gerrard as man of the match)

Yeah anything that has Adrian Chiles on I can't take seriously