Group D - Uruguay, Costa Rica, England & Italy

First topic message reminder :

Discuss all things Group D here.

You've got to remember though JB that we had a very young side and (hopefully) at the Euro's we'll get a better look at how good we could be. We're far from world beaters though and I'd probably say we should be aiming for QF's at the Euro's.

We put in a good performance against Italy but laboured against Uruguay (It looked to me like everyone was trying to be the hero instead of playing as a team in the final 3rd) and Costa Rica was a glorified friendly for us so I can discount that one.

I see absolutely no reason why England can't win Euro 2016.

No European team has been terribly impressive at this World Cup; it'll be an open tournament, particularly when one sees that the inflated nature of said competition increases the chance of an upset or two.

Duty281 wrote:Overrated doesn't necessarily mean that those two teams are, in my opinion, poor. I heard people on this forum and in the media touting Italy and Uruguay as potential winners of the World Cup, hence me terming them as "overrated". Something which has been proven to be correct over the duration of this World Cup.

England will be desperately disappointed that they didn't get anything out of either game, when one takes into consideration their number of chances they had against Italy, and the lack of opportunities that Uruguay had. The performance against Italy, certainly, didn't correctly correlate with the subsequent result.

And England's attacking performance against Sweden wasn't all that great; one long ball, and one Theo Walcott against a poor Swedish defence.

You keep saying this Duty but are ignoring that Italy had other chances too. They hit the woodwork twice and had a shot cleared of the line. If both teams took all their chances, Italy would have still won.

Derbymanc wrote:You've got to remember though JB that we had a very young side and (hopefully) at the Euro's we'll get a better look at how good we could be. We're far from world beaters though and I'd probably say we should be aiming for QF's at the Euro's.

We put in a good performance against Italy but laboured against Uruguay (It looked to me like everyone was trying to be the hero instead of playing as a team in the final 3rd) and Costa Rica was a glorified friendly for us so I can discount that one.

Can we play the "young" excuse though? There was a lot of experienced players (over 25) in our starting 11 with a few youngsters thrown in too. Compare also the impact England's young players made this WC to say, the German youngsters like Muller made four years ago.

Anyone can win it Duty, like you say, International football seems to be wide open at the moment and there's no reason someone like the greeks won't be thinking the same.

I think if we reach the 1/4's we can call it a success but there's no reason we can't all think we could win it too.

We'll se how this bunch of players matures first though.


Maybe young was the wrong word JB, inexperienced might be better. I wouldn't call this WC a failure for us as we didn't really expect to progress too far anyway. (A dissapointment sure.)

Benson - As England had more chances, both overall and on target, I'm not exactly sure how you come to the conclusion that "If both teams took all their chances, Italy would have won"?

Duty281 wrote:Benson - As England had more chances, both overall and on target, I'm not exactly sure how you come to the conclusion that "If both teams took all their chances, Italy would have won"?

  

I'm not referring to shots on target, just chances in general and both teams were fairly level - and this is against an Italian side who couldn't win for toffee at the time.
Anyway, what does it matter? Some chances are taken and some aren't and Italy took more of their chances then England did.

J.Benson II wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Benson - As England had more chances, both overall and on target, I'm not exactly sure how you come to the conclusion that "If both teams took all their chances, Italy would have won"?

  

I'm not referring to shots on target, just chances in general and both teams were fairly level - and this is against an Italian side who couldn't win for toffee at the time.
Anyway, what does it matter? Some chances are taken and some aren't and Italy took more of their chances then England did.

What does it matter? You tell me, as you brought it up.

Chances in general, you say? England had more.

Duty281 wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Benson - As England had more chances, both overall and on target, I'm not exactly sure how you come to the conclusion that "If both teams took all their chances, Italy would have won"?

  

I'm not referring to shots on target, just chances in general and both teams were fairly level - and this is against an Italian side who couldn't win for toffee at the time.
Anyway, what does it matter? Some chances are taken and some aren't and Italy took more of their chances then England did.

What does it matter? You tell me, as you brought it up.

Chances in general, you say? England had more.

  

Can't help but admire your never ending delusions optimism.

18 shots to 13 from Italy.
8 on target to 5.
9 corners to 2.

Not quite sure what you're trying to argue here; England had more chances, that is clear to see.

But still lost.
I agree with your medium term plans for England above, duty. Of course that all makes sense.
However; right now, it's probably best to do some healing and let the wounds get some air.
Really admire your positive thinking though. It's always a great read, mate!

Are you watching any of the Tour or are you not interested?
Such beautiful countryside. You must be proud of the magnificent crowds that have turned out.

Oh yes, Linebreaker, we still lost, but I'm merely refuting Benson's claim that Italy had more chances.

Am watching some of the Tour from Yorkshire's lovely greenery, but have flicked over to Wimbledon now.   

Duty281 wrote:18 shots to 13 from Italy.
8 on target to 5.
9 corners to 2.

Not quite sure what you're trying to argue here; England had more chances, that is clear to see.

  

Shots on or off target don't really equate to chances. A speculative shot from 40 yards which a keeper comfortably holds is a shot on target.
On the balance of play, both England and Italy had chances to score. Had Italy lost, they would have rued some of the chances they had to score which they never took.
Not sure why you are trying to find that silver lining for such a dismal WC campaign.

Yes, and England had more chances, isn't that something?!

Not quite sure why you're petulantly arguing over something rather trivial, but hey ho.

You're right. Its trivial. All that matters are goals at the end of the day.

Let's just hope England see sense and get rid of Roy unless they want similar issues in two years time.

Yes let's get rid of Roy.

I'm disgusted at the tactical evolution England have made under him; a rigid 4-4-2, to a more fluid 4-2-3-1.
I'm sickened at how England gave their best performance for at least ten years on his watch.
I'm horrified that he's transitioning the younger players steadily into the main squad.
And I'm shaking my head that he picked players on form; the likes of Sterling over Milner, and Henderson ahead of Wilshere or Carrick, whilst simultaneously jettisoning the likes of Young and Cleverley.

Duty281 wrote:Yes let's get rid of Roy.

Knew you'd see sense one day.   

John wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Yes let's get rid of Roy.

Knew you'd see sense one day.   

My dear boy, that was laced with sarcasm! #royhodgsonsbarmyarmy

Getting rid of Roy now would be banana's. Give the man a chance to manage a proper squad of his choosing. Everyones saying get someone with a better pedigree but he's got a decent one (much better than the other 'favourite' Arry Reknapp).

Give him till after the Euro's and see if we flop then.

Duty281 wrote:Yes let's get rid of Roy.

I'm disgusted at the tactical evolution England have made under him; a rigid 4-4-2, to a more fluid 4-2-3-1.
I'm sickened at how England gave their best performance for at least ten years on his watch.
I'm horrified that he's transitioning the younger players steadily into the main squad.
And I'm shaking my head that he picked players on form; the likes of Sterling over Milner, and Henderson ahead of Wilshere or Carrick, whilst simultaneously jettisoning the likes of Young and Cleverley.

You seriously think England will be successful with Roy in charge? I mean, seriously?
I like the guy because he seems nice enough but he's out of his depth here just like he was at Liverpool.
England's "best performance" sounds a lot less impressive when you consider: A) It was a losing performance and B) It was against a team who were in a shocking run of form.
Picking the likes of Sterling and Barkley while omitting Cleverley and Young were just obvious decisions rather than inspired ones. Anyone would have done the same.

I really don't think not doing a good job at Liverpool and out of depth are the same thing. No one is scared of the Liverpool job when theyve managed Inter.

But, again, its changed. Before it wasnt results first, we were "all" so angry that we could grind out some results but play with no intent of attack or intent to improve our style. Now we go the other direction and we dont have instant results so its all spouting on results.

I think we have a chance of being successful, we judge on cycles, hes probably hit the majority of his targets, the young players will benefit, in fact all the players, will benefit with the consistency and my least important point there is no alternative worth pursuing.

J.Benson II wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Yes let's get rid of Roy.

I'm disgusted at the tactical evolution England have made under him; a rigid 4-4-2, to a more fluid 4-2-3-1.
I'm sickened at how England gave their best performance for at least ten years on his watch.
I'm horrified that he's transitioning the younger players steadily into the main squad.
And I'm shaking my head that he picked players on form; the likes of Sterling over Milner, and Henderson ahead of Wilshere or Carrick, whilst simultaneously jettisoning the likes of Young and Cleverley.

You seriously think England will be successful with Roy in charge? I mean, seriously?
I like the guy because he seems nice enough but he's out of his depth here just like he was at Liverpool.
England's "best performance" sounds a lot less impressive when you consider: A) It was a losing performance and B) It was against a team who were in a shocking run of form.
Picking the likes of Sterling and Barkley while omitting Cleverley and Young were just obvious decisions rather than inspired ones. Anyone would have done the same.

We stand to have more chance of success with Hodgson in charge, a man willing to adapt, than we did with Capello, McClaren or Eriksson at the helm.

And not picking Cleverley or Young, and picking Sterling and Barkley, were the sort of decisions that previous England managers have been too afraid to make. Certainly a lot of people on this forum, pre-tournament, were of the view that Hodgson would be playing safe.