Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by McLaren Wed 23 May - 13:29

First topic message reminder :

kwinigolfer wrote:
McLaren wrote:Kwini

I reckon Harry has scored a double eagle.

She's a weird looking bird, more a bogey I'd say.

Kwini, you have very high standards. I seem to remember you thought Lexi was a bit of a minger.

by super_realist Mon 2 Jul - 19:28

Well we know they've played 2 bum teams and got beaten by Belgium reserves and have conceded in each game.
Knockout games are cagey affairs usually, and if you rely on one man, then we see what happened to teams that do that like Portugal and Argentina.

Uruguay totally pumped Russia. 16 shots, 6 on target. That's fairly creative don't you think?

Scandinavian teams are very hard to play against and make chances, that's always been the case.

Did you think Uruguay weren't creative against Argentina? They smashed them.

by Diggers Mon 2 Jul - 19:46

So scoring 6 isn't creative? And it was England reserves as well remember, an utterly pointless game. Hey, I'm quite happy you make early predictions, we've seen how they can work out.
Teams develop at world cups, because of the coaching time as we'll a season matches played. To judge Englands starting team after 2 games played, games they should have won and did, seems strange to me. I genuinely don't know if we're are the real deal, but I don't think you do either.

by NedB-H Mon 2 Jul - 20:04

I do find it interesting how narratives get written in football. In the first game England were a couple of minutes from a disappointing 1-1 and a slightly precarious position, no doubt with lots of negative media coverage. The late winner made a massive difference to their position in the group, but it didn’t fundamentally change the rest of the performance in that game. And we’ve been judging plenty of other teams for looking “unconvincing” in their wins in this tournament.
Then one admittedly good performance against Panama and the narrative changes completely. Yet the basics are the same, one impressive win and one slightly fortunate one. Obviously momentum is a factor and you want to be getting better and better, but I wonder what the reaction in the press would have been if we’d started with a 6-1 and followed up with a narrow 2-1.
Personally I’m not entirely convinced by this England team yet. I agree with super that the defence isn’t confidence-inspiring, having not kept a clean sheet yet. And although we know what the players can do from club level, Sterling, Rashford and Alli don’t look in goalscoring form from what we’ve seen, which puts a lot of pressure on Kane.
But that said, knockout games can have anything happen, and there’s not enough games in a World Cup to draw big conclusions from. If you write off the Belgium game for being two teams not trying, England (and Belgium) have had 180 minutes against two bang average teams, which gives you next to nothing to go on for how they’ll get on against better teams. I remember watching Holland in the 2008 Euros put goals past everyone for fun in the group stage, then get turned over by Russia second round. England could easily find themselves in a semi final against Croatia just by a couple of scrappy 2-1s... and Croatia looked nervous in their game last night.

by Diggers Mon 2 Jul - 20:12

Loving this World Cup!!

by Diggers Mon 2 Jul - 20:40

Creative Belgium have to go route 1. Their defence has been torn apart time and again this second half. Think the heat has played a part in this to be honest but Japan deserve a lot of credit.

by Diggers Mon 2 Jul - 20:46

NedB-H wrote:I do find it interesting how narratives get written in football. In the first game England were a couple of minutes from a disappointing 1-1 and a slightly precarious position, no doubt with lots of negative media coverage. The late winner made a massive difference to their position in the group, but it didn’t fundamentally change the rest of the performance in that game. And we’ve been judging plenty of other teams for looking “unconvincing” in their wins in this tournament.
Then one admittedly good performance against Panama and the narrative changes completely. Yet the basics are the same, one impressive win and one slightly fortunate one. Obviously momentum is a factor and you want to be getting better and better, but I wonder what the reaction in the press would have been if we’d started with a 6-1 and followed up with a narrow 2-1.
Personally I’m not entirely convinced by this England team yet. I agree with super that the defence isn’t confidence-inspiring, having not kept a clean sheet yet. And although we know what the players can do from club level, Sterling, Rashford and Alli don’t look in goalscoring form from what we’ve seen, which puts a lot of pressure on Kane.
But that said, knockout games can have anything happen, and there’s not enough games in a World Cup to draw big conclusions from. If you write off the Belgium game for being two teams not trying, England (and Belgium) have had 180 minutes against two bang average teams, which gives you next to nothing to go on for how they’ll get on against better teams. I remember watching Holland in the 2008 Euros put goals past everyone for fun in the group stage, then get turned over by Russia second round. England could easily find themselves in a semi final against Croatia just by a couple of scrappy 2-1s... and Croatia looked nervous in their game last night.

Another way of looking at the Tunisia game is we were all over them, scored, had a highly debatable penalty given against us, a far more obvious one (or two) turned down, and we won. Bar the penalty they threatened nothing. All things being equal we should have won at a canter, they got the luck to stay in it.

by Diggers Mon 2 Jul - 20:57

And the winner from a guy who couldn't make the West Brom side. Cracking match, hard to see Belgium beating Brazil after that effort and Brazil's relative stroll. Which means of course they probably will!

by NedB-H Mon 2 Jul - 21:58

Belgium were dreadful for the first hour today. Went sideways in possession without any creativity, a la Spain, and cut open far too easily in defence. Not sure Martinez is too sure what his best formation is, never mind his best starting XI

by pedro Mon 2 Jul - 22:08

Feel sorry for Japan.
Plenty of drama yesterday and today!

by super_realist Tue 3 Jul - 8:10

Diggers wrote:So scoring 6 isn't creative? And it was England reserves as well remember, an utterly pointless game. Hey, I'm quite happy you make early predictions, we've seen how they can work out.
Teams develop at world cups, because of the coaching time as we'll a season matches played. To judge Englands starting team after 2 games played, games they should have won and did, seems strange to me. I genuinely don't know if we're are the real deal, but I don't think you do either.

Panama are by far and away the worst team in the competition. Russia are only ranked low because they haven't played a qualification game in two years. Panama are absolutely terrible and I would expect any team in the competition to score a handful of goals against them.

Hilarious I'm criticised for "judging" England after 2 games, when that's precisely (as usual) what is going on and all of a sudden they're nailed on for the final, despite not having won a knockout game in 12 years.

By the way the entire adage of "Games England should have won" is exactly why they consistently fail to do anything in tournaments. They are so full of themselves, and are even worse than Liverpool when it comes to living in the past. If Argentina, Germany, Portugal etc can go out to "less fancied opposition" then it's more than possible that England could be out tonight. It's certainly no better than 50/50.

If England make the final, I'll say well done, but it won't be because they've been a great team, it will be largely due to fortune in the draw and some shocking performances by the usual favourites.

by JAS Tue 3 Jul - 9:05

I actually think this has been Englands best World Cup in years, not because they pumped the minnows Panama but because I think Southgate has a really good grasp of the big picture. He's ensured a protective bubble round his squad and pretty much managed to have the media eating out of his hand which is a massive coup. Go back through previous WC's and a rabid press would at this point have been full of negative headlines after the (meaningless) Belgian defeat.

They may well get beat tonight (I'd say its 50/50) and out will come the knives but so far you can't fault what he's done. Of course if they do stay in after tonight, his job will become virtually impossible as he will be a slave to the expectation and hysteria which will result.

by Be_the_ball Tue 3 Jul - 9:41

Agreed Jas, Keeping the media in check has been Southgate's biggest achievement so far.

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 11:55

super_realist wrote:
Diggers wrote:So scoring 6 isn't creative? And it was England reserves as well remember, an utterly pointless game. Hey, I'm quite happy you make early predictions, we've seen how they can work out.
Teams develop at world cups, because of the coaching time as we'll a season matches played. To judge Englands starting team after 2 games played, games they should have won and did, seems strange to me. I genuinely don't know if we're are the real deal, but I don't think you do either.

Panama are by far and away the worst team in the competition. Russia are only ranked low because they haven't played a qualification game in two years. Panama are absolutely terrible and I would expect any team in the competition to score a handful of goals against them.

Hilarious I'm criticised for "judging" England after 2 games, when that's precisely (as usual) what is going on and all of a sudden they're nailed on for the final, despite not having won a knockout game in 12 years.

By the way the entire adage of "Games England should have won" is exactly why they consistently fail to do anything in tournaments. They are so full of themselves, and are even worse than Liverpool when it comes to living in the past. If Argentina, Germany, Portugal etc can go out to "less fancied opposition" then it's more than possible that England could be out tonight. It's certainly no better than 50/50.

If England make the final, I'll say well done, but it won't be because they've been a great team, it will be largely due to fortune in the draw and some shocking performances by the usual favourites.

You had no problem saying Portugal had improved recently, completely ignoring they won the Euros after drawing 6 of 7 games. lets face it, a few months ago you were completely slating Southgate, saying there was literally no point England taking a team to the world cup (your exact words) because whatever happened it was always a disaster because history meant it had to be a disaster. Now you just create situations that mean you can say well done but have a caveat saying it's completely due to other circumstances. So if England win 3-0 tonight is it because of the draw? I'm guessing if they do Colombia will suddenly become a garbage team that we should beat easily anyway.
By the way, I have not seen a single person in the media (or that I know personally) say we are nailed on for the final, not even anything close to that. But hey, if it sounds good to say that and backs up your argument, you just go ahead and make that kind of thing up.

by pedro Tue 3 Jul - 12:33

super_realist is 606's Paul the Octopus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Octopus

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 13:13

I'm happy to go with a prediction, I see a 2 - 0 win for England. This afternoon, I'll go 2 - 1 Sweden.

by NedB-H Tue 3 Jul - 14:41

2-1 Switzerland and 1-0 Colombia

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 17:33

Sweden, solid, what you see is what you get.

by NedB-H Tue 3 Jul - 17:39

Two teams who play the underdog card well, always likely to cancel each other out. Think Sweden just held their nerve better, Switzerland probably the slightly better players on paper. They started trying to play pretty passing football instead of matching up to Sweden, and they’re not quite good enough to do that.

by westisbest Tue 3 Jul - 18:39

They will need to up their game for the quarters.

by westisbest Tue 3 Jul - 18:40

Few British players through to the second round of Wimbledon.

by super_realist Tue 3 Jul - 21:36

westisbest wrote:Few British players through to the second round of Wimbledon.

Not too bad, Konta, Edmund, Swan and Boulter.

Trippier is a nasty little bar steward isn't he?

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 21:54

Trippier is star.
Never in doubt.

by Be_the_ball Tue 3 Jul - 22:01

Well that was easy Shocked

A few cardiac arrests after that one I'd say Laugh

Pure sporting drama Wink

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 22:04

Matches like that make teams, very pleased to see a bunch of cheating cnuts in tears. Quarter finals, thank you very much!

by westisbest Tue 3 Jul - 22:14

Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 22:54

Sweden can't play possession football the way Colombia did at times. Could be a game of set pieces, wouldn't surprise me to see Cahill brought in. We've a cracking chance of a semi spot. I'm loving this World Cup, what a cauldron it was tonight, brilliant atmosphere yet again. The longer we stay involved the more I'll enjoy it.

by pedro Tue 3 Jul - 23:33

A few posters on here expected this would be a 50/50 game. I think they were about right...

by Diggers Tue 3 Jul - 23:42

It wasn't a 50 50 game over 90 minutes, not even close, and Colombia should have had at least 1 player sent off and we should have had at least another penalty. They dominated the first 15 of extra time, we dominated the second 15.
It was tighter than needed, but the balance of (fair) play was not 50 50. Not that I give a toss.
By the way, Harry Kane likely nailed on as Golden Boot winner already? Maybe one more to make sure.

by beninho Wed 4 Jul - 7:23

I tipped us for the quarter finals but really hope we make the semis now. They are playing like a team and for each other. Concerned with Alli and his fitness. Eric Dier had stones to take the fifth pen after a cracking save by pickford. It was always going to be tight though. But I was on an emotional rollercoaster. Bring on Saturday!

by super_realist Wed 4 Jul - 7:52

westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.

Are you joking? Sweden have always made it tough for England. They've had it much harder than England to get where they are. You have to expect a tough match there, England have only beaten Sweden about once in the last 30 years.

It's going to be a tough match.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 4 Jul - 7:59

westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.

Seriously? With our record against them? Headscratch

by super_realist Wed 4 Jul - 8:06

navyblueshorts wrote:
westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.
Seriously? With our record against them?

Precisely, It's that same attitude they used against Iceland.

England might well win, but Sweden are very much in the same tier and peer group as England so it won't be an easy win at all.

by Be_the_ball Wed 4 Jul - 9:24

There's definitely a likeable quality to this group of players, Pickford's interview after the game was great, he made a brilliant save in IT then again in the shoot out. Courtois made some disparaging comments about him prior to the game, he answered him beautifully. Trippier too. A few sore heads this morning I imagine? Laugh

by McLaren Wed 4 Jul - 10:15

Super

The Swedish players are not in the England players peer group. England are full of top four players who can compete in the champions league. The teams may end up closely matched but the players are not of the same quality. Although as this WC is teaching us the better organised team beats the better individuals, at least in international football. Madrid proving otherwise for club football.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 4 Jul - 10:16

McLaren wrote:Super

The Swedish players are not in the England players peer group. England are full of top four players who can compete in the champions league. The teams may end up closely matched but the players are not of the same quality. Although as this WC is teaching us the better organised team beats the better individuals, at least in international football. Madrid proving otherwise for club football.

Hmm. Forgive me, but I thought football was a team game...

by NedB-H Wed 4 Jul - 13:17

Most impressive thing England did last night was game management. Colombia set out to wind them up from the start, and for a youngish group with some hotheaded players they did well not to take the bait for the most part. Then when they got the goal they kept a good balance between attack and defence, didn’t invite on pressure and restricted Colombia to a couple of half chances. If Henderson doesn’t lose his runner at the death they see it out. Then they weathered the ineveitable adrenaline rush from Colombia when they came back out and were the better team for the last fifteen minutes of ET.
Interesting that the Colombian management and media were unhappy at the refereeing and felt hard done by overall after the match. One or two decisions didn’t go their way to be fair, Young winning a free kick by going over the ball being the obvious one. But hard to have too much sympathy when the referee had lost control early, and that was entirely down to their own aggressive tactics at the start.

First goal will be vital on Saturday, Sweden won’t be easy, their whole game plan is built around defending solidly and nicking a goal from somewhere, and for all their good play England didn’t create many actual opportunities last night. Not sure Sweden have enough to turn it around if they go behind, but if they score first we could have a panic and Iceland Mk 2

by NedB-H Wed 4 Jul - 13:50

Also agree with the comment that it seems to be a genuinely likeable squad of players. Contrasts with the England cricket setup right now who are about as unlikeable as they’ve been since Botham and Gatting’s yobs in the 1980s.

by Diggers Wed 4 Jul - 15:47

I thought Henderson was fantastic last night. He ran his socks off, I know he dropped his man for the goal but he also covered so many other runs that could have led to danger. He seems to be a bit of a target for people, I don't know why, we've had a decade or more of good footballers who possibly weren't committed to international football, he clearly has a massive passion and drive. Plus he can play a bit and is clearly the team boss, even with Kane wearing the armband.
Sweden will be tough, they are for anyone. I'm more than happy to have them though, any neutral should be pulling for England because we at least try and play some decent football.

by JAS Wed 4 Jul - 16:47

navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:Super

The Swedish players are not in the England players peer group. England are full of top four players who can compete in the champions league. The teams may end up closely matched but the players are not of the same quality. Although as this WC is teaching us the better organised team beats the better individuals, at least in international football. Madrid proving otherwise for club football.
Hmm. Forgive me, but I thought football was a team game...

Indeed Navy, One only has to look back at the last Euros and Iceland as a team greater than the sum of its parts. For those of the thinking that Sweden maybe punching above their weight...they’ve delivered some pretty hefty punches with who they’ve dumped out the competition both in qualifying and in the group stage. As I said earlier though I have been most impressed with GS and I’m sure he won’t be getting ahead of himself by dismissing Sweden as “easy fodder”

by westisbest Wed 4 Jul - 16:51

super_realist wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.
Seriously? With our record against them?

Precisely, It's that same attitude they used against Iceland.

England might well win, but Sweden are very much in the same tier and peer group as England so it won't be an easy win at all.

History goes out he window come Saturday.

England are the better side.
Just my take on it. Especially after last nights pen win.

They may find it tough to start, but think England will score first/early and control the game.

Hey I could be very wrong and Sweden may come out the traps fast and go through.

Not the first time I’d be wrong.
With the way this World Cup is going anything could happen.

Looking forward to the quarters.

by NedB-H Wed 4 Jul - 17:17

Wasn’t knocking Henderson Diggers, I agree he’s been superb all tournament. I’d just seen a few diffeten names thrown around for the Colombia goal and it took me a couple of replays to work out who messed up. All’s well that ends well.

by kwinigolfer Wed 4 Jul - 17:37

Sunderland Jordans have done England proud Digs . . . . . . .

Anyone heard any update on injured players, Alli, for instance, Vardy, Walker?

by super_realist Wed 4 Jul - 18:24

McLaren wrote:Super

The Swedish players are not in the England players peer group. England are full of top four players who can compete in the champions league. The teams may end up closely matched but the players are not of the same quality. Although as this WC is teaching us the better organised team beats the better individuals, at least in international football. Madrid proving otherwise for club football.

Mac, once again you're completely myopic and only seeing things in one sense and proving you have no ability to read. I didn't say at all that the Swedish players were in the same peer group as England. I SAID THE TEAM WAS, which it is.

England and Sweden are pretty much on the same level and have achieved about as much as each other in the last 10-15 tournaments. They are in their peer group.

by super_realist Wed 4 Jul - 18:30

westisbest wrote:
super_realist wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.
Seriously? With our record against them?

Precisely, It's that same attitude they used against Iceland.

England might well win, but Sweden are very much in the same tier and peer group as England so it won't be an easy win at all.

History goes out he window come Saturday.

England are the better side.
Just my take on it. Especially after last nights pen win.

What evidence have you got they're the better side? When did England last prove they were better than Sweden, or any team left in the competition?

Weren't Germany considered a better side than Japan? Once you start "considering yourself better" it is the moment you get caught out and shown that you aren't.

You can say history goes out the window all you like, but history keeps repeating itself for England, so don't throw anything out the window. Take Sweden seriously, they've had more impressive results than England so far. There's a fag paper between the two teams, regardless of your individuals. Better organisation and team unity works better than individual skill most of the time.

by Diggers Wed 4 Jul - 18:32

NedB-H wrote:Wasn’t knocking Henderson Diggers, I agree he’s been superb all tournament. I’d just seen a few diffeten names thrown around for the Colombia goal and it took me a couple of replays to work out who messed up. All’s well that ends well.

Nope, didn't think you did, just saw his name and reminded me to mention him.
Re the Sweden history, not sure it's relevant. Last championship match was a 3-2 win for us at the 2012 Euros. Don't think we have too many players left from them (Cahill, Young?), a different manager and a different style of play. Probably the same for them.
They are tough because they are organised, they beat Italy in a play off to get here so must be useful. I just think if we carry on holding our nerve and stick to the game plan, then the fact we do have better players (playing as a team) should see us through. Probably the big difference between the sides, we have a confident, in form, world class striker

by Diggers Wed 4 Jul - 18:34

super_realist wrote:
westisbest wrote:
super_realist wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
westisbest wrote:Can’t see Sweden causing England to many problems.
Comfortable 2/3-0 win for me.
Seriously? With our record against them?

Precisely, It's that same attitude they used against Iceland.

England might well win, but Sweden are very much in the same tier and peer group as England so it won't be an easy win at all. The

History goes out he window come Saturday.

England are the better side.
Just my take on it. Especially after last nights pen win.

What evidence have you got they're the better side? When did England last prove they were better than Sweden, or any team left in the competition?

Weren't Germany considered a better side than Japan? Once you start "considering yourself better" it is the moment you get caught out and shown that you aren't.

You can say history goes out the window all you like, but history keeps repeating itself for England, so don't throw anything out the window. Take Sweden seriously, they've had more impressive results than England so far. There's a fag paper between the two teams, regardless of your individuals. Better organisation and team unity works better than individual skill most of the time.

History is last meeting is a 3-2 Euros win for us, last 2 World Cup matches draws. Utterly irrelevant but hardly means we should be terrified.

by super_realist Wed 4 Jul - 18:37

I know Diggers, tight match right, and before that it had been something like 25 years.
Bottom line is there's no reason to think that England are going to steam roll this or have it easy. Sweden despite not being glamourous or flashy are effective at getting results, and that will be difficult for England.
You might not be terrified, but equally, no one should think it will be easy. It's a coin toss of a match.

by Diggers Wed 4 Jul - 18:47

I don't think it is quite a toss of a coin because we do have better players, mainly Kane. I'd have us as 60-40 from what I've seen of both teams. I wouldn't put many of their guys in the England side, I suspect the Sweden manager would love a few of ours. Be interesting to see who has most support, did feel like an away game yesterday and that makes a difference. Suspect they may have more fans.

by super_realist Thu 5 Jul - 8:26

You keep saying that Diggers, but pretty much every team who has gone out, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Portugal etc can say the same about the teams they have gone out to. They'd all think their players are better.

England show time and again that regardless of how good they are on "paper" they struggle against all opposition in tournament football when it comes to knockout football. Colombia was their FIRST knockout win since 2006 for goodness sake.

You might well not put any of their players in your team, but that's not because they aren't good, it's because you likely don't know anything about their players and we don't see much of Swedish football in our media, which is natural. You aren't Swedish, so why would you know? Ignorance doesn't mean they don't have good players. Forsberg is decent, and Lindelöf is very good too.

It's not a case of which of their players would get in your team, it's about, and always has been about how well you play as a team, and Sweden are incredibly effective, albeit boring, even if they have no big names. Did you not see how well they qualified in a tough group with Netherlands and France? They won their group in Russia too.
Russia have got to the QF with no standout players, it's not the be all and end all and if you use that rationale for deciding who will win or not, then it's no surprise that England always underestimate opposition and have this preposterous expectation and hilarious opinion of how good they are or how much better than other teams they are, when they demonstrably aren't.

Do you not think Italy thought they were better on paper than Sweden? Yet, they lost in the play off.
England might well have a couple of better players, but so what? What difference did that make every time England have failed against "lesser" opposition in tournaments in the last 30 years?

I think England might well sneak it but Sweden are good and it wouldn't be a surprise at all if Sweden won.

by JAS Thu 5 Jul - 10:48

Italy undoubtedly thought they were better and that thinking is a “better” team’s undoing. I’m quite sure that NO team still in the competition has a more impressive list of scalps in this WC (Netherlands, Italy, Germany).

Having said that, whilst I think Sweden are boringly effective, I also think Southgate is putting England on a different level. This squad is different, it’s not full of well paid egos at the top of their game and concerned more about their image and bank balance, these kids whilst good are still on the rise and haven’t yet fulfilled their potential therefore they are hungrier and more inclined to go with a well stated plan. Whilst the average fan and media are getting carried away with jingoistic nonsense Southgate is not, he’s just calmly getting on with keeping his squad relaxed and in a protective bubble. That doesn’t necessarily mean I think they’re going to triumph, it just means there’s a lot less chance of the usual shooting themselves in the foot.

by Sponsored content