England v Italy, Quarter Final, Build up and Match Thread

[Duty281]

First topic message reminder :

England v Italy (Sunday 24th June, 19:45 KO, BBC 1)

On the back of good defence, England have notched up 2 wins and a draw, confounding the majority of expectations along the way. The unexpected bonus of topping Group D has given them a game against Italy, not Spain, and England have a glorious chance of reaching their first semi-final in 16 years. Italy haven't really started yet and their sole win was against a poor Ireland team but they did manage an impressive draw against the Spanish. The winners will play Germany.......or maybe Greece.

My prediction: England 1-0 Italy

Come on England!

[GSC]

He'd go mental haha

[azania]

Italy have scored 4 goals. England have scored 5

How are Italy better at going forward than Roy's Boys? I'm throwing stats at you. Barcelona were the better team than Chelsea but lost!

England!!!!! c'mon boy's!!!!

Italy played the better teams. They conceded less also and attack is the best form of defense.

[Postie]

It's a hard one to call.

I just hope Hodgson recalls Carroll to play alongside Rooney and possibly Walcott to start too, at the expense of Welbeck and Milner.

For me, Carroll is a must start in this game to hold the ball up and give us a target plus help take the pressure off Rooney a bit.We also need some pace from out wide to worry the Italian back four.

If he gets his selection right, we could just edge it.

[Mad for Chelsea]

"Italy play the better football". Always wondered what this sort of sentence could mean, and I have come to the conclusion that "good football" envolves lots of fancy looking passing. Crossing is outlawed, and heaven forbid anyone attempting to shoot from outside the area.

Genuine question for people who believe in "better football": which goal sticks in your mind the most, Roberto Carlos's wonder free-kick against France, or Holland's goal against England in the eighties where they made 24 (I think?) passes before scoring? how about Bergkamp's superb strike vs Argentina in 98 (off a long pass)?

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

"Italy play the better football". Always wondered what this sort of sentence could mean, and I have come to the conclusion that "good football" envolves lots of fancy looking passing. Crossing is outlawed, and heaven forbid anyone attempting to shoot from outside the area.

Genuine question for people who believe in "better football": which goal sticks in your mind the most, Roberto Carlos's wonder free-kick against France, or Holland's goal against England in the eighties where they made 24 (I think?) passes before scoring? how about Bergkamp's superb strike vs Argentina in 98 (off a long pass)?

This is the exact arguement I have used as a Norwich fan against Swansea 'playing better football' than us this season.

[GSC]

Attractive on the eye is all well and good but Chelsea had a better season than Barca, Bayern and Man Utd this season.

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

[Liam]

I love how people are so 'anti good football'. I bet any England fan would love them to play like Germany or Spain. There's nothing wrong with it. Its not fancy, its simply keeping the ball and building pressure, which is for me a crucial part of international football as when your under pressure, keeping the ball releases that pressure and makes the other team chase it.

All the most memorable goals are belter, because they have that shock and awe factor of a hit out of nowhere. Some of the most memorable goals are also from brilliant football. Barca for example, how many great goals do they score and leave you breathless at how easy they make the game look. Or even closer to home, the invincible side for Arsenal, some of the goals they scored were absolutely mind blowing, fantastic passing then the finish to end the move.

Embrace good football, its better for the game than simply lumping the ball long and hoping for a flick on etc.

[Mad for Chelsea]

and the argument I used for Chelsea-Barcelona

sorry but if a team has 70+% possession against a team playing the better part of an hour with ten men, and is playing the better football, surely they shoud win? As I see it, Chelsea were both more clinical in attack and more solid in defense: is that not a decent definition of "better football"?

[Liam]

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

They are dominate because of their 'nice passes', that is what they will be known for and for having possible the greatest player of all time playing for them.

[Guest]

Esteban Cambiasso's goal at the 2006 World Cup against Serbia is probably the best international goal I have seen. The Roberto Carlos effort, whilst visually stunning, was a fluke and could have hit the corner flag on any other day as alot of his blasters did. I love to see pass and move football myself but everybody is different I suppose.

When the Italians turn it on they are a joy to behold. I remember them dismantling Germany in the semi finals of that very World Cup. The best club side performance I have witnessed was AC Milan schooling a much fancied Barcelona side in the 1994 Champions League final. A true masterclass.

Bergkamp's pearler in 98 was breathtaking though, I'll give you that one!

[Liam]

"Italy play the better football". Always wondered what this sort of sentence could mean, and I have come to the conclusion that "good football" envolves lots of fancy looking passing. Crossing is outlawed, and heaven forbid anyone attempting to shoot from outside the area.

Genuine question for people who believe in "better football": which goal sticks in your mind the most, Roberto Carlos's wonder free-kick against France, or Holland's goal against England in the eighties where they made 24 (I think?) passes before scoring? how about Bergkamp's superb strike vs Argentina in 98 (off a long pass)?

This is the exact arguement I have used as a Norwich fan against Swansea 'playing better football' than us this season.

Yet Swansea finishes above you this season and have been a 'breath of fresh air'. They also utilise their wingers in Dyer and Sinclair who often shoot from range and cross.

[Guest]

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

They are dominate because of their 'nice passes', that is what they will be known for and for having possible the greatest player of all time playing for them.

And arguably the greatest midfield duo of all time in Xavi and Iniesta.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I'm sorry martyr but I disagree, totally. To me there's as much skill in a quick and ruthless counter-attack as there is in a team passing the ball around for two minutes before working an opening. Different skills for sure. I find the whole "better football" argument very condescending: it seems to imply there is only one way you should look to play football, which is just wrong.

My personal preference is for the "quick" teams over the "pass-pass-pass" ones, but I don't lay into teams who enjoy building up their chances slowly.

[GSC]

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

They are dominate because of their 'nice passes', that is what they will be known for and for having possible the greatest player of all time playing for them.

The results are what make them memorable though, had they played that way and won nothing, they wouldn't be particularly noteworthy

[Mad for Chelsea]

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

They are dominate because of their 'nice passes', that is what they will be known for and for having possible the greatest player of all time playing for them.

yes, and Chelsea won the CL because they were the best defending side (let's forget Napoli part one for a moment) scored some great goals when it mattered (Ramires vs Barca was stunning) and had the mental strength and belief.

Come on, who honestly remembers the style of play that got England the World Cup. They'll be remembered because of what they won, not how they won it.

[Mad for Chelsea]

The Barca team will go down in history because of their dominance, not because they play nice passes.

They are dominate because of their 'nice passes', that is what they will be known for and for having possible the greatest player of all time playing for them.

The results are what make them memorable though, had they played that way and won nothing, they wouldn't be particularly noteworthy

like Arsenal

[Guest]

"Italy play the better football". Always wondered what this sort of sentence could mean, and I have come to the conclusion that "good football" envolves lots of fancy looking passing. Crossing is outlawed, and heaven forbid anyone attempting to shoot from outside the area.

Genuine question for people who believe in "better football": which goal sticks in your mind the most, Roberto Carlos's wonder free-kick against France, or Holland's goal against England in the eighties where they made 24 (I think?) passes before scoring? how about Bergkamp's superb strike vs Argentina in 98 (off a long pass)?

This is the exact arguement I have used as a Norwich fan against Swansea 'playing better football' than us this season.

Each to their own Olly. If I was given the choice of a Nowrich season ticket or a Swansea season ticket then I'd be planning a route to Wales on the spot.

[GSC]

I love how people are so 'anti good football'. I bet any England fan would love them to play like Germany or Spain. There's nothing wrong with it. Its not fancy, its simply keeping the ball and building pressure, which is for me a crucial part of international football as when your under pressure, keeping the ball releases that pressure and makes the other team chase it.

All the most memorable goals are belter, because they have that shock and awe factor of a hit out of nowhere. Some of the most memorable goals are also from brilliant football. Barca for example, how many great goals do they score and leave you breathless at how easy they make the game look. Or even closer to home, the invincible side for Arsenal, some of the goals they scored were absolutely mind blowing, fantastic passing then the finish to end the move.

Embrace good football, its better for the game than simply lumping the ball long and hoping for a flick on etc.

I'm not anti good football, I just don't agree with the implied notion that its better to play a certain way regardless of results.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I agree with "each to his own": people have different tastes, and that's fine, we should respect that. If someone would rather watch Stoke than Barcelona they're perfectly entitled to.

I think this "anti good football" sentiment martyr talks about comes precisely because Barcelona have been over-hyped as playing the perfect football and how every team should aspire to be like them etc. etc. People got fed up with it, quite frankly.

[GSC]

Personally I'd rather watch a devastating quick counter attack than 2 minute long Barca move.

[Liam]

I'm sorry martyr but I disagree, totally. To me there's as much skill in a quick and ruthless counter-attack as there is in a team passing the ball around for two minutes before working an opening. Different skills for sure. I find the whole "better football" argument very condescending: it seems to imply there is only one way you should look to play football, which is just wrong.

My personal preference is for the "quick" teams over the "pass-pass-pass" ones, but I don't lay into teams who enjoy building up their chances slowly.

I agree, 'total football' isn't the only way to play, and for some reason, some football fans feel as if now its the only way to play, when it clearly isn't, it just so happens that allot of good teams play good football. I agree though, I love counter attacking football. As a Utd fan, one of the best performances I have seen from Utd have come at Arsenal, where we have hit them on the counter in devastating fashion, the Nani, Ronaldo and Park goals all spring to mind.

At the end of the day, its all about playing to your strengths. If you have fast wingers and a big centre forward for example, everything should tell you that you should utilise these wingers whenever possible and get plenty of crosses in.

[Guest]

I agree with "each to his own": people have different tastes, and that's fine, we should respect that. If someone would rather watch Stoke than Barcelona they're perfectly entitled to.

I think this "anti good football" sentiment martyr talks about comes precisely because Barcelona have been over-hyped as playing the perfect football and how every team should aspire to be like them etc. etc. People got fed up with it, quite frankly.

Your owner wouldn't mind that quality every week at Chelsea I suspect though? And you'll more than likely get it when Pep gets the itch again!

[Liam]

I don't get who are saying that total football is what every team should develop. If you haven;t the players who are capable of playing that way, then don't.

I'm sorry but Chelsea got through because Bayern and Barca missed goal scoring chance after goal scoring chance. Obviously Chelsea took their goals well, but imo, were incredibly lucky more than anything to win that CL.

[mystiroakey]

yawwwwnn- this has come back has it- jeasus- chelsea won fair and sqaure- well done chelsea .

[mystiroakey]

people are also deluded when it comes to better football. England v sweden was the game people come back to watch fooball games for. The spain v italy game was one of the worst games imaginable - it really was like watching paint dry..tap tap tap.

however and this is the crux off it. Football is great becuase it is such a big game. Different playing styles adds layers and flavour., the match ups get interesting. FOOTBALL IS WHAT IT IS and its brilliant for it.

Anyone saying certain styles are anti football are ANTI football themselves


PS: matyr what barca/spain do and play isnt total football- total football is the dutch philosophy whereby there is 10 players that are all similar in quality - all being able to attack,pass,defend,move - all at the same level. there are no specific defenders,midfielder or attackers..

I hate your and others better footballing remarks- its dilluded more than anything else- better means more wins ,more success and better rankings- nothing else

[Guest]

I must I admit was caught up in focusing on negativity in England's first performance against France.

After further reflection I came to this conclusion about football.

You will never see a better football team than that of Brazil 1970 and Holland 1974. Why?

The game has changed and as someone like me who played CB for 15 years at county level I can say that defending is a nightmare I would hate to face. Yes standards in fitness have changed, as has footwear, balls and kit. Also I might add the offside rule which for me with the whole 'Not interfering in play' and 'Phase 1' malarky. Take the goal Spain scored against Croatia. Navas was offside. The ball went to Iniesta who then played the ball to Navas. For me that is 1 phase of play. The defenders pushed up to keep Navas offside yet he is able to come active. Eventually attackers will wait by the goalkeeper before coming active. The offside rule now benefits attacking/passing teams. Spain, Germany and Holland all benefit from this as they have better technical players.

Let's turn to England. Because they don't play like Spain, Germany or Holland it is seen as a failure. This logic is doomed to fail because we are not Spanish, German or Dutch. We are England. The one thing however we do better than most teams is defend. Also for the first time since 1996 England are thinking like a team. Go back to 1966. Was that England team really blessed with attacking talent? For me the team of 1970 was a much better outfit had it not been for Bonetti. Charlton, Peters. England had some class. England's best passers and technical gifted players since have been Keegan, Platt, Hoddle, Robson, Waddle, Gascoigne, Scholes.

England over the years have lacked balance. Take the Golden Generation. As good as they were your Beckhams, Terrys, Ferdinands, Gerrards, Lampards, Owens, Nevilles, Coles despite that, the lack of pace and the lack of team spirit was their undoing.

Take our current crop. Gerrard, Parker, Young, Walcott. The balance is absolutely spot on. Parker is the lungs and sacrificial lamb to do the tasks that many glory players would hate to do. Something Gerrard and Lampard between them could not find a solution to. Young and Walcott offer the pace that Beckham, Joe Cole, Sinclair of the pasts lacked.

Take the back 4. Johnson, Terry, Lescott, Cole. Hodgson has these guys enjoying defending. That Terry clearance the other night was reminiscence of his pomp Chelsea days. Johnson and Cole are spreading the pitch making it much bigger for players to chase around. Lescott and Terry not scared of putting their head where it hurts.

Look at the forward line. Welbeck and Rooney have made their contributions, but let us not forget Carroll. How is it with 1 game that Hodgson can do what Dalglish couldn't do with 20 odd and that is getting Carroll playing like a proper centre forward?

You have to credit the FA with getting it spot on with Hodgson who in such little time has got England playing to their strengths. We are not going to pass the ball for 4-5 minute spells like other teams, but we can do is strangle teams and disrupt their rythym. To expect anything more is quite deilluding. It may not carry the same grace of greater teams before, but what we want as a nation is success. And for England to be successful we need to play the England way and to our strengths and that is absorbing pressure and being clinical in those 10-15 minutes when we do have the ball and create chances. It has worked for other teams in the past and will continue to work in the future.

[Crimey]

How is it with 1 game that Hodgson can do what Dalglish couldn't do with 20 odd and that is getting Carroll playing like a proper centre forward?

I do agree with most of your sentiment, but have to pull you up on this. As a Liverpool fan I noticed a steady improvement in how Carroll played over the season, I think he'd got a kick up the backside and he looks fitter, stronger, faster and most importantly has improved his first touch immensely. He was playing like a top centre forward for a month or two before Euro 2012 so I think it's unfair to give the credit to Hodgson who just benefited from Carroll's change in attitude.

[Guest]

How is it with 1 game that Hodgson can do what Dalglish couldn't do with 20 odd and that is getting Carroll playing like a proper centre forward?

I do agree with most of your sentiment, but have to pull you up on this. As a Liverpool fan I noticed a steady improvement in how Carroll played over the season, I think he'd got a kick up the backside and he looks fitter, stronger, faster and most importantly has improved his first touch immensely. He was playing like a top centre forward for a month or two before Euro 2012 so I think it's unfair to give the credit to Hodgson who just benefited from Carroll's change in attitude.

I might have seem harsh on that. I know he had injuries since he signed, and the last month of the season he looked much fresher. The only reason I made that statement was because of how Hodgson has got the umph out of him in such a short space of time.

[VTR]

Good post legendkiller. Play to your strengths and play as a team. Good example is Italia 90, it was not flowing football from England by any means but we kept getting the results and the team spirit was fantastic.

That's why its so memorable and people still talk about the tournament to this day. As the memories fade we don't remember the passages of play: we remember the winning goals, the atmosphere, the one for all spirit.

[Guest]

Good post legendkiller. Play to your strengths and play as a team. Good example is Italia 90, it was not flowing football from England by any means but we kept getting the results and the team spirit was fantastic.

That's why its so memorable and people still talk about the tournament to this day. As the memories fade we don't remember the passages of play: we remember the winning goals, the atmosphere, the one for all spirit.

Exactly.

1990 in terms of quality was probably one of our poorest showings at a major tournament. I mean look at the team. Shilton, Parker, Butcher, McMahon. Hardly world beaters, but did the job. We struggled against the likes of Cameroon, Belgium, Ireland. The press were baying for blood and yet the fans welcomed back as hero's.

Now it's kinda the reverse where the press are more positive than the fans.

[mystiroakey]

We lost our way after 96 thats for sure. This time the team have given 100% and as long as that doesnt change i am kinda proud.

Alot of countries play this game its not right that we should feel like we have to be the best, although i am hoping that day will come. If we can nick a tourny we will have a good shot at it!

[Guest]

We can nick this one if truth be told.

England will be in the minds of other teams because England have shown glimpses of brilliant attacking and also long periods of just solid defending. Say we get past Italy and set-up a semi-final with Germany, you wouldn't bet against them playing more conservative than they did in the group stages.

I can see Italy playing 2 banks of 4 and doubling up on Young, Walcott (if he starts) and Rooney.

[mystiroakey]

I was hoping for england to come in with the chelsea defense and if we come up against germany and spain then it would be the recent cl mind set coming in to play.. It could be relatively similar- however i think england with ox,walcot,gerrard and rooney could produce a better attacking threat rather than just drogba in reality

[Crimey]

I think the key battle is going to be in the middle with Parker-Gerrard versus Pirlo-De Rossi. Both the teams have worked more through the middle in their group games and I think that will continue. The problem really is that Italy played with four central midfielders against Ireland they were very tight in the middle and so could crowd out Gerrard and Parker, our full backs need to push up to stop their full backs adding width.

Rooney has to help out, as he could be key in being the extra go to ball.

[Crimey]

I was hoping for england to come in with the chelsea defense and if we come up against germany and spain then it would be the recent cl mind set coming in to play.. It could be relatively similar- however i think england with ox,walcot,gerrard and rooney could produce a better attacking threat rather than just drogba in reality

Chelsea's defence wasn't actually that good though, Barcelona and Bayern both got through the defence on a few occasions it was just down to poor finishing and the psychological edge and a bit of luck that got them through. We can look to Chelsea for inspiration, but really not for tactics.

[mystiroakey]

Mind set was really the key to my comment. the recent games with the same players. as you put it physcolical- that could come into play again

[Guest]

I think the key battle is going to be in the middle with Parker-Gerrard versus Pirlo-De Rossi. Both the teams have worked more through the middle in their group games and I think that will continue. The problem really is that Italy played with four central midfielders against Ireland they were very tight in the middle and so could crowd out Gerrard and Parker, our full backs need to push up to stop their full backs adding width.

Rooney has to help out, as he could be key in being the extra go to ball.

I think the Italians will let England play. They will look to squash the wide players. I would fancy Parker to go man on man better on Pirlo than De Rossi on Gerrard.

Cassano is going to have to work his socks off. He is going to have to do a lot of running.

[Guest]

England will need that aerial presence that Drogba gave Chelsea in that final. If it is still deadlocked at 0-0 come 70 minutes, I would imagine Carroll will come on to save the day

[Crimey]

I think Carroll should start, Rooney behind. Welbeck didn't do enough in the Ukraine game to warrant a start again.

[mystiroakey]

yes carrol!

sweden reminded me alot of chelsea actually with ibaham as drogba

[Guest]

I think Carroll should start, Rooney behind. Welbeck didn't do enough in the Ukraine game to warrant a start again.

I agree, not so much on principle of his performance, but because I think the Italians would stuggle more against Carroll than Welbeck.

I would plump for Carroll.

I think Roy would go for Welbeck because Carroll is the better 2nd option. It is sad to say that in a way as it sounds selection being made on hope than sense.

[mystiroakey]

I think Hodgson will go for welbeck based on rooney again. club mates and all that

[Crimey]

I think Carroll should start, Rooney behind. Welbeck didn't do enough in the Ukraine game to warrant a start again.

I agree, not so much on principle of his performance, but because I think the Italians would stuggle more against Carroll than Welbeck.

I would plump for Carroll.

I think Roy would go for Welbeck because Carroll is the better 2nd option. It is sad to say that in a way as it sounds selection being made on hope than sense.

The problem is, bar the FA Cup Final, Carroll struggled as a substitute as the team just hoofs it up to him and expects him to control it. I would have thought the pace of Welbeck, Walcott, Chamberlain, Defoe, those types of guys will always be a better option off of the bench to take advantage of tired legs.

[Guest]

He would go for Welbeck because he creates more space than Carroll, but that I said I would fancy Carroll to score more than Welbeck. If he started with Carroll, he would have to start Milner because he is the better crosser of the ball compared to Walcott and the Ox.

So many different options. Never thought I would say that for England!

[EnglishReign]

I'd start Carroll. Welbeck is a great prospect but apart from the goal hasn't done a great deal. Roy should give the lad a break on Sunday, I reckon he'd be good as an impact sub.

[Guest]

I think Carroll should start, Rooney behind. Welbeck didn't do enough in the Ukraine game to warrant a start again.

I agree, not so much on principle of his performance, but because I think the Italians would stuggle more against Carroll than Welbeck.

I would plump for Carroll.

I think Roy would go for Welbeck because Carroll is the better 2nd option. It is sad to say that in a way as it sounds selection being made on hope than sense.

The problem is, bar the FA Cup Final, Carroll struggled as a substitute as the team just hoofs it up to him and expects him to control it. I would have thought the pace of Welbeck, Walcott, Chamberlain, Defoe, those types of guys will always be a better option off of the bench to take advantage of tired legs.

Welbeck is a slow starter in matches. I think in a 20 minute burst Carroll would do the more damage. Also Rooney is the key here. Liverpool in the attack he would be the main man, but with Rooney, Carroll would be able to play further up the field. I think if Carroll started and wasn't in the game, I still wouldn't bring Welbeck on. I would place Defoe ahead of him.

I guess that's the frustrating thing with Welbeck is that he plays with pace, yet isn't someone that represents a pacey striker if that makes sense

[Crimey]

To be honest I don't rate Welbeck, and this tournament has only strengthened my belief that he isn't a top rate striker. Bar the finish, which was excellent and I don't think it was luck, he's been quite poor. I know people have praised him on his work rate and his running but I think sometimes you want him to just to stay up top, too often I see him behind the half way line on the wings and it leaves nobody attacking, it's so frustrating.

I would also rather bring on Defoe than Welbeck to be honest.

[Liam]

Welbeck has done superb for someone in his first full season at a club like Man Utd, and his first starts for his country. He's done all right if you ask me but I would start Carroll against Italy to give England someone to aim that when crossing and playing long balls from the back.

I really rate Defoe but whether his mind will be right or not after his recent Father's death, is another story.

[Guest]

I think because he is 'unconventional' makes him more difficult to pick up. I think the France game was a massive step up and once he had the support, he looked much better. It is a great ability to have if you can drift in and out of games.

He will never be a 20+ goal a season striker, but he will chip in with his share. See him more of 15-18 goals a season. He reminds me a bit of Sylvain Wiltord. Won't score loads, but can score in big games.

[mystiroakey]

most french strikers didnt score much- but they won stuff with many players that can score- obviously this is kinda similar to englands situation. all out attacking players can score, but we wont have one that scores them all or the majority. however we need them all to do other stuff to protect the defensive unit

[Sponsored content]