England v Belgium Friendly

by Duty281 Fri 01 Jun 2012, 5:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by **Crimey** Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:01 pm

owen10ozzy wrote:
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!

I'm normally very negative about England's chances, but I think the amount of negativity before this tournament is just as weird as the strange amount of positivity that was there before the last World Cup.

I think we'll get out of our group and then lose in the next round. That is not a "laughable" prediction, it's a realistic one. We've got the players to get that far, it's just about how well we perform on the day. As boring as the friendlies were, what they showed was that perhaps we might be capable of grinding out results.

I don't think we'll win the Euros, but I don't think we're the worst team there either.

by Liam Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:03 pm

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:You guys are overstating the point of friendlies. They're much more about performances than results.

Spot on. Its not like the win means everything because you need a vital three points or anything, its not a game where you can use the saying of a wins a win.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:05 pm

martyr_94 wrote:
Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:You guys are overstating the point of friendlies. They're much more about performances than results.

Spot on. Its not like the win means everything because you need a vital three points or anything, its not a game where you can use the saying of a wins a win.

Who is to say that the players see friendlies as significant? They might not play as well in friendlies because they don't see it as important.

by Liam Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:08 pm

olly the tractor boy wrote:
martyr_94 wrote:
Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:You guys are overstating the point of friendlies. They're much more about performances than results.

Spot on. Its not like the win means everything because you need a vital three points or anything, its not a game where you can use the saying of a wins a win.

Who is to say that the players see friendlies as significant? They might not play as well in friendlies because they don't see it as important.

Well when there are starting places up for grabs I would have thought they are taking these friendlies very seriously. Especially considering they are the only warm up games they are getting before the French game.

by GSC Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:12 pm

The players are auditioning for starting jobs. (Unless your name is Hart, Cole, Johnson or Gerrard)

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:12 pm

What do you guys think the starting team for the France game will be then?

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:13 pm

Tbh England end up defending so deep because they continually give the ball away - its not a tactic, they had one proper counter attack yesterday.

The problem (in my eyes) is the 2 in midfield aren't good enough to play the ball through. Parker is tenacious but limited and gerrard is/was class in the final third supporting the striker rather than controlling a game.

Yesterday there was a lot of by passing the midfield and goin straight to the winger/forward and consequently the ball just kept coming back.

Defending just after a transition is the hardest thing to do as you aren't set, it requires great concentration skills. It is going to be very difficult to apply every 3 or 4 days.

Regardless of how poor England have been in previous tournaments no one rreally thought they would struggle, or fail to get out of the group. I feel this is a 50/50 possibility at the moment.

by Liam Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:16 pm

olly the tractor boy wrote:What do you guys think the starting team for the France game will be then?

Hart

Johnson
Cahill (If not fit, Jags)
Terry
Cole

Parker
Gerrard

Walcott/Milner-May play Milner to counter act the French left hand side, with Ribery and Evra/Clichey bombing forward
Young
Downing

Welbeck

by EnglishReign Sun 03 Jun 2012, 1:44 pm

owen10ozzy wrote:by EnglishReign Today at 10:52 am

.Yes, England are poor but to say they won't get out of the group is nonsense. I expect all three games to be nervy affairs, as they always are, but finishing 2nd in that group is no big ask. No offence to any Swedes.

Why is it nonsense? People like you really annoy me because you simply dismiss any negative statement about the team because of pride and rose tinted glasses. (Im not knocking your pride it is admirable) But at least dismiss my notion with some kind of intellectual argument.

You say its nonsense to say we wont get out of the group but what have you seen in the past 4 years to suggest otherwise?

We failed to reach EURO 2008 and at the last World Cup were held by USA, Algeria and struggled past Slovenia 1-0. All three games we were poor and it showed when we came up against a team with quality as we were thumped by Germany 4-1.

Even in qualifying the second strongest team in the group (Montengro) we failed to beat drawing twice and were also held by Switzerland.

08 Lost to Germany 2-1
09 Lost to spain 2-0, Netherlands 2-2, Brazil 0-1 France 1-2
2010 Ghana 1-1, Germany 1-4,
2011 Netherlands 2-3, Spain 1-0

That is our international record against relatively strong opposition over the past 4 years. Hardly makes for great viewing and most certainly suggests that we will struggle to get out of our group.

In our group we have Sweden who beat Holland in qualification and France who are unbeaten in 20.

I think we will lose both of those and squeak past Ukraine 1-0, possibly draw 1-1. That will not see us through to the knockout rounds.

I'm sure you'll get over people like me annoying you over the internet, but frankly someone writing all of their responses in italics doesn't really do it for me. Do you think this is your blog or something?

You're going all the way back to 08 for supposed "evidence" that England won't get out of the group, but I can't remember the last time England didn't get out of a group. I don't need an argument to back up what I said, I wasn't necessarily aiming it at you and I am NOT dismissing any negative statements - my first words were "Yes, England are poor".

Can't believe two supporters are arguing over the extent of how rubbish their national team is. Soon we will know.

by Thomond Sun 03 Jun 2012, 4:32 pm

Parker'srole doesn't help him, and we will always be outnumbered in midfield whe nEngland play this formation under Roy. The media hasn't given Parker a very good writeup today, and I do recall one challenge of his which would probably result in a red card if it were at the Euro's

One main criticism is the full backs offer nothing going forwards, compared to say a Brazil and how the full backs bomb on under them.

Ashley Cole hardly got past the halfway line, I cannot see the point of taking Carroll along if the fullbacks or wide men cannot cross a ball , I can't remember any quality crosses yesterday whatsoever.

The main problem is the same old one, England cant retain possession and the players cannot pass the ball, its why England look so tired, its nothing to do with long domestic seasons, its because England are always chasing the ball simply cos we give it away so very quickly.
Its been like this for years , after Euro 2000 Keegan and Brooking said FA initiatives were in place to get more kids developed who would play a continental way and all the smaller pitches to develop kids talk was fed to the fans.
12 years on and nothings changed,( if anything its gotten worse) only last week the FA talked about the same bleeding initiative starting soon !!!

Belgium had 59 percent possession yesterday and 6 shots on target compared to our one. Better teams than Belgium will punish England if they cannot keep hold of the ball.

My general thoughts mixed in with some opinions off some people from other forums.

by **owen10ozzy** Sun 03 Jun 2012, 4:39 pm

You raise a good point mate, it is a little bit of a mute point since we are at least in agreement that they are poor.

In italics as Im on the phone writing and for some reason it seems to send in italic all the time.

As for last time England didnt get out of group EURO 2000 group containing Romania, Portugal and Germany.

by Liam Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:05 pm

Thomond wrote:Parker'srole doesn't help him, and we will always be outnumbered in midfield whe nEngland play this formation under Roy. The media hasn't given Parker a very good writeup today, and I do recall one challenge of his which would probably result in a red card if it were at the Euro's

One main criticism is the full backs offer nothing going forwards, compared to say a Brazil and how the full backs bomb on under them.

Ashley Cole hardly got past the halfway line, I cannot see the point of taking Carroll along if the fullbacks or wide men cannot cross a ball , I can't remember any quality crosses yesterday whatsoever.

The main problem is the same old one, England cant retain possession and the players cannot pass the ball, its why England look so tired, its nothing to do with long domestic seasons, its because England are always chasing the ball simply cos we give it away so very quickly.
Its been like this for years , after Euro 2000 Keegan and Brooking said FA initiatives were in place to get more kids developed who would play a continental way and all the smaller pitches to develop kids talk was fed to the fans.
12 years on and nothings changed,( if anything its gotten worse) only last week the FA talked about the same bleeding initiative starting soon !!!

Belgium had 59 percent possession yesterday and 6 shots on target compared to our one. Better teams than Belgium will punish England if they cannot keep hold of the ball.

My general thoughts mixed in with some opinions off some people from other forums.

Glad i'm not the only one to realise this. I was making this point last night and this morning to no avail Hug

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:10 pm

I think the fullbacks main strength is attacking tbh (though cole is excellent defensively), the problem is you can't get them up the pitch if you don't hold onto the ball for a while.

I feel years ago the frustration was of England giving the ball away in the opponents half easily, which was annoying but not 100% guaranteed to lead to failure - this new trend of giving it away continually in your own half or around halfway is a worry.

by Thomond Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:13 pm

Ireland are similarly poor at retaining possession but they do alright, they are set up well defensively but do rely on Given and Dunne bailing them out (I suppose we are in the Group of Debt with Italy and Spain Whistle

) occasionally. England should get through what is an easy group. 4 points would probably get them a runners up spot at least.

Ireland could get through, they need to beat Italy or Croatia and draw with the other. They could do it but it's not likely in what is one of two Group of Deaths.

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:17 pm

Thomond wrote:Ireland are similarly poor at retaining possession but they do alright, they are set up well defensively but do rely on Given and Dunne bailing them out (I suppose we are in the Group of Debt with Italy and Spain ) occasionally. England should get through what is an easy group. 4 points would probably get them a runners up spot at least.

Ireland could get through, they need to beat Italy or Croatia and draw with the other. They could do it but it's not likely in what is one of two Group of Deaths.

Ireland do not dominate possession and are not that creative but they don't carelessly give the ball away in their own half on a regular basis, they wouldn't have lost just 1 game in 2 qualifying campaigns if they had.

Hoping we will be hard to beat but if I'm honest can't see us getting out of the group - though stranger things have happened.

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:30 pm

It wont be strange if england get out the group.

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:31 pm

mystiroakey wrote:It wont be strange if england get out the group.

Ireland.

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:33 pm

Fingers crossed for you then. tough.group you got

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:40 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Fingers crossed for you then. tough.group you got

a slight understatement lol.

Hoping we can do Italy who are in a bit of trouble with this latest match fixing scandal. Spain to win all their games and a point against Croatia hopefully enough.

Spain 9
Ireland 4
Italy 3
Croatia 1

Would be lovely lol.

by Thomond Sun 03 Jun 2012, 5:52 pm

I could see it happening, Ireland tend to cause a few shocks when they enter a tournament. I think it's doable but not likely.

England don't dominate possession either Ent. Ireland could be more creative if they adapted a bit. I'm a bit on the fence about Trap, has done some good things but makes appalling personnel decisions and I think Ireland could do alright if they tried to be a bit more creative.

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 6:27 pm

Thomond wrote:I could see it happening, Ireland tend to cause a few shocks when they enter a tournament. I think it's doable but not likely.

England don't dominate possession either Ent. Ireland could be more creative if they adapted a bit. I'm a bit on the fence about Trap, has done some good things but makes appalling personnel decisions and I think Ireland could do alright if they tried to be a bit more creative.

I believe in Trapp and don't mind who he picks or his style, the same things were being said under Jack Charlton and then we had some proper players - McGrath, Keane, Houghton etc then we went 8 years without qualifying for a tournament.

We should just be grateful for qualifying and being competitive, we will struggle for goals once Robbie goes and will have to open up more, leaving us leaky at the back - could be a while before we make another tournament if we miss out on Brazil 2014.

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 7:30 pm

Anything can happen. park the bus. spain are not invincible

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 7:43 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Anything can happen. park the bus. spain are not invincible

Hoping for a draw but you've got to be realistic.

by GSC Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:22 pm

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

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:44 pm

Gsc it does work chelsea havent lost to barca in 9 games(full time) playing that system v barca. posters that say this cl was fluke dont ever.mention this fact.

by **Crimey** Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:46 pm

As well as the fact that when it happens over 3 games, it starts to look less like luck.

The psychological impact it has can't be underestimated, I think that's why a lot of players fluffed their lines when they got oppurtunities because of the sheer effort Chelsea were putting in, when it's difficult to get past a couple of times in a row it becomes more daunting of a task.

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:47 pm

By the way i didnt notice your 9 out of 10 comment. you are again filling this forum with very.bad accuracy. it is total nonsense. try and get in the real world pal.

by Liam Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:56 pm

Ahh Mys come one Chelsea had the luckiest champions league win I've seen. If Barca had had a bit more luck and took some of the chances on offer then Chelsea wouldn't have even been in the final. As for the Final, much of the same, Bayern had so many goal scoring chances and with Gomez having a nightmare and a mix of bad luck, Chelsea got to pens and won the lottery.

by Guest Sun 03 Jun 2012, 8:58 pm

9/10 times an English side (esp Chelsea) have a player sent off when playing Barcelona at the Nou Camp?

by Guest Sun 03 Jun 2012, 9:00 pm

ps I am not sure the Chelsea - England comparison really works, considering Chelsea have what appears to be significantly better players and squad depth.

by Ent Sun 03 Jun 2012, 9:02 pm

I think people are a bit desperate to big Chelsea up.

The way they played against Barca this year doesn't really resemble how they've went about their business before against them, in which they were much stronger, gave up less chances and created more.

However way you look at it, giving up lots of chances and relying on the opponents to miss them isn't good defending - its luck.

Also players get nervous when they get one chance in a game, not a hatful.

by GSC Sun 03 Jun 2012, 9:18 pm

9/10 is meant to represent the odds of them actually pulling it off, don't get into another 3 page argument where you talk about cliches the entire time.

by mystiroakey Sun 03 Jun 2012, 10:51 pm

Another bs post trying to wriggle out of your ridiculas posts. you said they.beat them 9/10...

by GSC Mon 04 Jun 2012, 12:48 am

9/10 times = 9 out of 10 times.

Unless you think teams come from 2-0 down at the Nou Camp down to 10 men more often?

by GSC Mon 04 Jun 2012, 12:49 am

Unless the issue is I put gets when i meant get in the original post

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 1:32 am

What the heck are you talking about?

by Ent Mon 04 Jun 2012, 1:35 am

Can we just leave it?

Good defending, counter attacking and set of set plays can be successful regularly. 11 men behind the ball and giving up 30 shots a match requires a hell of a lot of luck to be successful.

The end.

by Guest Mon 04 Jun 2012, 1:36 am

Ent wrote:Can we just leave it?

Good defending, counter attacking and set of set plays can be successful regularly. 11 men behind the ball and giving up 30 shots a match requires a hell of a lot of luck to be successful.

The end.

I agree.

by Thomond Mon 04 Jun 2012, 10:14 am

Chelsea did get lucky but you need luck to win a tournament. It certainly wasn't a marvelous defensive performance. To see someone do that to Barca watch their semi against Inter a few years back.

On Ireland, we have a history of causing one big shock a tournament (England win/USSR draw in 88, getting to the Quarters in 90, beating finalists Italy in the group stages in 94, drawing with finalists Germany in 02 (think Ireland scored one of the 3 goals they conceded too)
They are capable of doing it, they are not a stoic defensive side like the Italy of the 80s/90s but they are good defensively, they would need luck to beat Spain, maybe not as much against Italy or Croatia. In a few years, there are some guys capable of taking up Robbie's mantle, Long being of them, Doyle is doing great in his job as a linkman.

02 World Cup is really the only tournament I have seen Ireland play live but can't wait for the Euros to kick off!

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 10:18 am

Correct. i think the point of this discussion should be more about should ireland and england play in that system(solid base and counter) duing the tourny or just go all guns blazing. because neither can play the retention game.

I find alot of this thread more about having a dig rather than discussing football.

by Liam Mon 04 Jun 2012, 10:22 am

mystiroakey wrote:Correct. i think the point of this discussion should be more about should ireland and england play in that system(solid base and counter) duing the tourny or just go all guns blazing. because neither can play the retention game.

I find alot of this thread more about having a dig rather than discussing football.

I agree with your first point. Neither side are capable as you say of retention play, so England should make use of the pace they have in their side and play Walcott, Young and Welbeck from the start. Both will be set up tight and make themselves hard to beat and when you play that type of game, both sides have got great chances of getting out of their groups.

However, your second point I disagree with. Perhaps you have taken many of the points to heart for some reason. Everyone has had a quality football discussion, I've enjoyed it I can tell you. Everyone's got different view points and that doesn't mean people are having digs

by lorus59 Mon 04 Jun 2012, 10:58 am

What I fear is that this park the bus philosophy is being successful recently. The more it is, the more others will copy it. So we could be looking at a lot of 0-0 matches in the future.

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 12:51 pm

Lorus. football has become win at all costs. it naturally evolves. it is what it is. but it will alsi keep changing in the future. there is no perfect system for this game.

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 3:14 pm

matyr the problem is the way certain posters have taken my stance on the accuracy and point of there posts. They have taken that to heart- And when faced with the realities i have pointed out have got all upperty about it, the fact that they dont just apoligise and say yep that is false you are correct.. and yet go on and on about it on another level tells me there dont even care what really happened or has happened(hence why people only want to have a pop). There is really no point talking to people that cannot habdle the truth or who cant interpret and present statistical analysis from Correct data.

by Ent Mon 04 Jun 2012, 3:56 pm

mystiroakey wrote:matyr the problem is the way certain posters have taken my stance on the accuracy and point of there posts. They have taken that to heart- And when faced with the realities i have pointed out have got all upperty about it, the fact that they dont just apoligise and say yep that is false you are correct.. and yet go on and on about it on another level tells me there dont even care what really happened or has happened(hence why people only want to have a pop). There is really no point talking to people that cannot habdle the truth or who cant interpret and present statistical analysis from Correct data.

Behave, you were just being pedantic because it suited your point of view.

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 4:13 pm

No when people start giving the wrong stats for a match to help there argument- its wrong and doesnt help the debate, when people say things like chelsea loose 9 out of 10 times at the nou camp its simply wrong and doesnt help any debate.

When i point this out i get jumped on- you lot live in ignorance as much as you want

by Ent Mon 04 Jun 2012, 4:24 pm

mystiroakey wrote:No when people start giving the wrong stats for a match to help there argument- its wrong and doesnt help the debate, when people say things like chelsea loose 9 out of 10 times at the nou camp its simply wrong and doesnt help any debate.

When i point this out i get jumped on- you lot live in ignorance as much as you want

It isn't wrong, it is conjecture based on how the game played out. To suit your point of view you have been pedantic and pointed out Chelsea haven't lost 9/10 times in the camp nou - when this wasn't the point up for debate.

Then you have not replied to others correctly stating Chelsea previously have played much better and in a different style than they did this year.

It would be nice to just have a general chat about football rather than the classic internet forum chat of pedantry, misrepresentation and one upmanship.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon 04 Jun 2012, 4:25 pm

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 4:51 pm

Ironically i post about football, it then is countered with inaccuracies, I then bring that up and it is me that is pedantic or only here to argue 'internet style'

by mystiroakey Mon 04 Jun 2012, 4:55 pm

Anyway i will play the bigger man, lets forget this- but if any other inaccuricies come up to counter an argument i am gonna bring it up!

Also feel free to check mine as well- I would rather be proved wrong than discuss irrelevancies and live in a world of ignorance

by Sponsored content