Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

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.

[raycastleunited]

The Croatia midfield was giving England the run around in the second half, the England players were dead on their feet by ET, and fatigue leads to mental errors. Don't think it's got anything to do with fitness levels, just possession.

What I would be interested to know is how many of the england players were carrying injuries. Kane looked sluggish and hampered by something, Vardy was kept on the bench because he wasn't fit to play. He injured his groin against Colombia otherwise I suspect Southgate would have introduced him much sooner. Dele Alli only played for 60 minutes, he disappeared after that.

Obviously Southgate trusted his half-fit first choice players over his reserves, otherwise we would have seen Welbeck. I have to say I was surprised when Sterling went off as he looked England's most dangerous player.

[raycastleunited]

As I feared, England didn't make the most of their first half dominance. I think a fully fit Kane would have pounced on his opportunity, and Lingard's chance was clear cut too. I have to say though, if England had got to HT 2-0 up Croatia probably would have found a way to score twice in the 2nd half.

But overall, QF is par for England, so SF is a good achievement. First time we've seen England play decent football at a tournament since 2006.

[navyblueshorts]

As I feared, England didn't make the most of their first half dominance. I think a fully fit Kane would have pounced on his opportunity, and Lingard's chance was clear cut too. I have to say though, if England had got to HT 2-0 up Croatia probably would have found a way to score twice in the 2nd half.

But overall, QF is par for England, so SF is a good achievement. First time we've seen England play decent football at a tournament since 2006.

This seems to be something a lot are missing. It's not about being exciting and doing all the tricks. It's a tournament and winning is all that matters. We got found out second half vs. Croatia, but that's no shame as they're an excellent side.
Like many, was a bit surprised Sterling was subbed, but maybe he was shattered. Also expected to see Loftus-Cheek, but for some reason that didn't happen.
This is a good base for the up-and-coming U21 etc players to begin slotting in to.

[kwinigolfer]

In the meantime, I can't see England bouncing back vs Belgium, if anyone cares - not on two days' rest.
And wouldn't be surprised if France find Croatia out, like England did in the first half, and make them pay, like we really didn't.

But, such a good few weeks for England which may highlight more what we're missing, especially a mid-field general (would Ox-Ch have played?), rather than what we have. Agree about niggling injuries undermining England too and still not convinced by "back three", at least Walker who is such a threat as a full/wing-back. But never as good a crosser as Tripper has been for ages.

Lots to build on, but it'll be interesting to see the team that starts Euro qualies.

[raycastleunited]

As I feared, England didn't make the most of their first half dominance. I think a fully fit Kane would have pounced on his opportunity, and Lingard's chance was clear cut too. I have to say though, if England had got to HT 2-0 up Croatia probably would have found a way to score twice in the 2nd half.

But overall, QF is par for England, so SF is a good achievement. First time we've seen England play decent football at a tournament since 2006.

This seems to be something a lot are missing. It's not about being exciting and doing all the tricks. It's a tournament and winning is all that matters. We got found out second half vs. Croatia, but that's no shame as they're an excellent side.
Like many, was a bit surprised Sterling was subbed, but maybe he was shattered. Also expected to see Loftus-Cheek, but for some reason that didn't happen.
This is a good base for the up-and-coming U21 etc players to begin slotting in to.

It's not about doing the tricks but you need to have the ball to win, you need to retain possession to last through a tournament. There are the odd exceptions... Russia beat Spain without having any possession, but that approach doesn't take you all the way.

[Diggers]

So why is it that British players other than a select few never make it to the biggest clubs or the very top of the game?

Croatia, despite this being their THIRD extra time game on the trot looked FAR fitter than England did. The English back three especially looked very leaden footed, and Stones was especially slow to react to the goal pass and the midfield were also struggling.

If British footballers are weak willed and unfit then surely that has to relate to British people as a whole. To suddenly classify only footballers would be simply bizarre. Must apply to our athletes, cricketers, accountants, doctors, anyone basically. Clearly they have the same training and mental support as foreign players at British clubs so can only mean it's an inherently genetic trait. Weird as well considering the diverse ethnic roots of our team.
On the available evidence I can only conclude that the original theory is horseshite...

[McLaren]

Unfortunately the obvious happened for England. Henderson was put in an impossible position, he had to get the ball off or keep it against Modric and Rakatic. He was isolated and resorted to pumping it forward even when he got the ball.

https://twitter.com/Okxcha/status/1017386455327498240?s=19

As soon as England started to struggle to keep the ball Dier should have brought on alongside Henderson. Even if it didn't help keep the ball there would have been added cover for the defence.

[super_realist]

Diggers, We were only talking about footballers. Why would I extend that to other elements where that isn't even the case? Talk about making a ridiculous connection that isn't even there. To bring up Doctors, Accountants and other sports is probably one of the more ridiculous things I think you've ever brought up.

When have our doctors or accountants ever shown themselves to be less well trained than their foreign counterparts the way that our footballers do? Croatia had played THREE of these games in a row and STILL looked sharper than England.


The majority of these players haven't been at their clubs for nearly TWO MONTHS. (The FA Cup final was on 19th May and Champions League final was the week later)

The "training" you think they have been getting is not relevant to the last month when all of these players have been with their COUNTRIES. It doesn't matter if some of these players in opposition play for the same club, conditioning is lost RAPIDLY, and if you change your routine, then in two months there will be a massive difference. Basically, after that long away from your home club, your home club training doesn't matter.

England looked EXHAUSTED, Croatia did not.

[westisbest]

Hell of a men’s semi final at Wimbledon.

Been playing for over 6 hours. 24 all in the fifth.

[Be_the_ball]

So what you are saying Super is, while at their clubs they train and eat properly but when in England camp that is neglected?

I don't buy it I'm afraid.

What I think could have been a factor though was the heat and humidity, British players wouldn't be used to playing at 28-30 degree heat and humidity. Players playing on the continent would. I'd be interested to hear from the squad and coaches if they felt this was a factor...

[kwinigolfer]

Shocked to see Trippier back in the team - coming off leaving England with 10 men on Wednesday, he looked like he could be out for months.
Hope the lads win, but never see the point of these "third place" events, regardless of the sport. Or perhaps Isner should play the loser of Novak/Rafa?

[JAS]

Shocked to see Trippier back in the team - coming off leaving England with 10 men on Wednesday, he looked like he could be out for months.
Hope the lads win, but never see the point of these "third place" events, regardless of the sport. Or perhaps Isner should play the loser of Novak/Rafa?

Surprised too, ice pack on groin Weds to playing Sat? Strange risk for a relatively “meaningless” game.

Regarding Wimbers, everybody was saying last night at the end of the Anderson/Isner Match that the tournament winner was almost certainly coming from the other semi. Would the same still be said now after another marathon semi? At least Anderson will have had a day of rest. Has the potential fatigue balance now been evened out??

[super_realist]

So what you are saying Super is, while at their clubs they train and eat properly but when in England camp that is neglected?

I don't buy it I'm afraid.

What I think could have been a factor though was the heat and humidity, British players wouldn't be used to playing at 28-30 degree heat and humidity. Players playing on the continent would. I'd be interested to hear from the squad and coaches if they felt this was a factor...

Quite possibly the training for England isn't preparing them for the sort of exertion and game duration that might come their way, this is especially likely considering that no one thought England would get that far, so their training might not have been set up to cater for as far as they got. For example, it would have made sense to take off Kane after 60 mins v Panama. Save him for the later games where he looked pretty ineffective against Colombia, Sweden and Croatia.

The "heat and humidity" excuse is also complete balls. Just how "hot and humid" is Belgium, Sweden or Croatia? I'm sick of hearing that worthless excuse as if the English are the only team to play in a temperate English type climate. European teams are hardly playing in Turkish sauna's are they? They've all been in Russia for the last month at least anyway, so it should be a level playing field. Just how different has the climate been?

The way people talk you'd think that playing in England was like playing in Greenland whilst the rest of the world play in conditions like Houston in summer. It's simply bollox.
Surely it's far more likely that they didn't train sufficiently well (or for the conditions)? Didn't seem to bother the UK based players from other countries did it? How about Hazard and De Bruyne?

Even if it were true, it wasn't a secret that it might be warm in Russia, and if they failed to prepare for that or take it into consideration, then that simply proves my point of lack of preparation.
However, you seem to make the error that simply being English means you don't like or can't excel in hot and humid temperatures. What gives you that idea? I love those conditions for sport.

[beninho]

Its not really rocket science regarding England looking tired, for a start Croatia kept the ball better from second half onwards, Modric, who along with Perisic was the best player on the pitch, and is clearly one of the best centre mids in the world, was dictating play, Englands centre midfield had only one midfielder, Alli and Lingard are your traditional centre midfielders, and cannot be compared to Modric or the Barca player. By keeping the ball and by pushing the wingbacks backwards, meant a lot more chasing by England. They wore them down. It happens in lots of games. Southgate was a bit shown up tactically by not making the correct changes, he needed to shore up the midfield earlier, and change tactics.

Also the England team made 67 more appearances then the Croatia team last season. it all takes its toll.

Basically England got outplayed from second half onwards by some very good experianced players.

[Diggers]

So the FA have the biggest budget for any World Cup team. Stacked full of fitness training experts, but they just don't bother preparing. Just like all the other past British sides you talked about in your first post. Yeah, seems really likely.

[Be_the_ball]

What a disgrace of a final this is so far. Griezmann dive for France 1st goal, no VAR consulted. Then dodgy pen for France 2nd goal. Awful advertisement for the modern game. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[kwinigolfer]

No, he's going to Finland, not Denmark

[Diggers]

Gotta love football commentary. Croatians dominate the midfield in the second half, Pogba offering very little, gets a nice goal after two bites at the cherry and suddenly he's phenomenal. Shame that done poor decision have forced Croatia to chase the game so much.

[beninho]

The first free kick wasn't a foul but you can see why it was given. Var not in use for general fouls. The pen was controversial but in.line with others given in the world cup.

France always likely to win this, and probably best squad out there anyway.

Croatia already played there world cup in the semi.

[Diggers]

Ben, by in line Im assuming you mean incorrect?

[beninho]

No idea if was incorrect, but look at all pens given for handball after review I would have said no pen, maybe im wrong and refs are correct.

[Diggers]

Pretty much everyone has said wrong, because they have been.How close does the ball have to be to the hand not to give it, an inch? France for sure the best squad but I don't think they've been the best team today, they got the luck and have made the most of it. Fair play I suppose.

[NedB-H]

For me it’s a penalty, and I very rarely think handballs are. I don’t think he’s moving his arm because of jumping, I think he’s instinctively throwing anything behind the line of the ball. Watch how his arm and leg move exactly towards each other as well as towards the ball, he’s trying to block it with any part of his body in my opinion. That said I wouldn’t have complained if it hadn’t been given under the “clear and obvious” line.

[Diggers]

Well, in that case he has got some pretty amazing reflexes, he should be a boxer, he'd block any punch thrown.
Griezmann player of the tournament for me, never stopped looking or running for the ball, good end product as well.

[Diggers]

Midric gets it, can't quibble too much with that. Kane the Golden Boot winner, funnily enough for me he's one of the guys who still has something to prove. But we forget he's still 24 and a player who will work so hard to improve his game. Was he crocked or sacrificed for the team by playing so deep, doubt we'll ever know.

[pedro]

The pen given was clearly inline with other VAR pens given in this WC. Whether or not it was inline with rules as such is irrelevant, as refs are instructed to interpret in a particular way before each WC. So clearly a pen. In this case, only if his arms had been glued to his body there wouldn’t have been a pen.

[Diggers]

Really? I've see plenty of ball to arm in this World Cup and no penalty has been given. VAR hasn't queried every similar incident so I'm not seeing that kind of consistency. The only consistency is that some VAR hand ball reviews were quite frankly appalling.

[pedro]

But once queried similar incidents have resulted in a pen. And in this case the defender even gained a clear advantage which makes the refs interpretation acceptable imo.

There is no clear cut definition of deliberate or unnatural position, because who will ever know apart from the player? So it’s always an interpretation by the ref and in this WC they have clearly been instructed to interpret in a particular way.

I also think a pundits like Shearer is s plank. Clearly too much anti-french sentiment and populist BS.

But looking ahead, the remaining question is: when is handballing a pen and when isn’t it? Imo they should add that any handballing that affects the game is a pen unless the arms are glued to the body. Already now you see players holding their hands behind their back when defending.

[Diggers]

Think that is far too harsh on defending, you could have played deliberately smacking the ball at defenders knowing any hand contact could be a pen. Defending is hard enough anyway, doing it with 2 hands constantly tied behind your back seems unreasonable, arms give you balance. How do you judge what has had an effect? In theory every contact will have some form of effect, it's impossible to judge. We don't know yesterday's had an effect, we can't replay the incident without the ball hitting his hand.

[super_realist]

So the FA have the biggest budget for any World Cup team. Stacked full of fitness training experts, but they just don't bother preparing. Just like all the other past British sides you talked about in your first post. Yeah, seems really likely.

I'm not saying they don't "bother" preparing. I'm saying they perhaps don't "prepare" to the conditions and the possible outcomes.

People said the same thing about the "fitness experts" of Tiger Moobs and that "of course he'd be doing things correctly" because " how could a man with his resources not have the best team behind him) but he demonstrably didn't. Why could England not be the same, after all it's not like their "experts" have tournament winning coaches and fitness experts is it? How would they know how to prepare?

There's no guarantee that having supposed "experts" or "the most money" in your team means you are prepared properly.

England routinely fail in tournaments. Are they just not good enough, or do they not quite have the benefits of "marginal gains" that small countries like Croatia have.

Could a country of 4 million people just produce better players, or is their superior fitness regime part of the reason for their success too?


Looking back, England have made minor improvements on their dire tournaments of the last 20 years, which is of course all that was asked of them, but they really did flatter to deceive. Low amount of shots on target, low amount of goals from open play etc. They struggled against any quality and only had a keeper to save them from a lacklustre Sweden. They didn't really do well in ANY game except for the whipping boys of Panama, who make Republic Of Ireland look good in a tournament.

[navyblueshorts]

Never a penalty in a month of Sundays and how Griezmann can look at himself in the mirror, I'll never know. Then again, he's a pro footballer.

Possibly, IMO, the worst outcome of a WC Final that I can recall. Croatia by far and away the best team out there and France gifted two goals, due to scheiss officialdom, that materially affected what happened thereafter. Utter carp.

On paper, France have an awesome group of players, but I loathe them, and not just because of the result yesterday. With all those exceptional players, all they ever do (and pretty much have done) is play negative football. Same in '98.
It's absolutely about winning, but I'll take anyone attempting to play football over them.

[navyblueshorts]

So the FA have the biggest budget for any World Cup team. Stacked full of fitness training experts, but they just don't bother preparing. Just like all the other past British sides you talked about in your first post. Yeah, seems really likely.

I'm not saying they don't "bother" preparing. I'm saying they perhaps don't "prepare" to the conditions and the possible outcomes.

People said the same thing about the "fitness experts" of Tiger Moobs and that "of course he'd be doing things correctly"  because " how could a man with his resources not have the best team behind him) but he demonstrably didn't. Why could England not be the same, after all it's not like their "experts" have tournament winning coaches and fitness experts is it? How would they know how to prepare?

There's no guarantee that having supposed "experts" or "the most money" in your team means you are prepared properly.

England routinely fail in tournaments. Are they just not good enough, or do they not quite have the benefits of "marginal gains" that small countries like Croatia have.

Could a country of 4 million people just produce better players, or is their superior fitness regime part of the reason for their success too?


Looking back, England have made minor improvements on their dire tournaments of the last 20 years, which is of course all that was asked of them,  but they really did flatter to deceive. Low amount of shots on target, low amount of goals from open play etc. They struggled against any quality and only had a keeper to save them from a lacklustre Sweden. They didn't really do well in ANY game except for the whipping boys of Panama, who make Republic Of Ireland look good in a tournament.

Rubbish. They played as well as I can recently recall against a very good Sweden. Yes, Pickford bailed them out a couple of times, but so what? Most games are not that one-sided that the winning keeper has nothing to do.
Tunisia - highest ranked African side in tournament.
Sweden - got into WC18 by beating Italy (from group incl. Netherlands, France and Bulgaria), stuffed Mexico, beat Switzerland and very unlucky against Germany.

Main problem I had was that our best players were all defensive. Trippier, Stones and Maguire had excellent tournaments, as did Pickford. Henderson reasonable. Thought Lingard had moments, as did Sterling and Kane, but the rest? Think Loftus-Cheek has a good future in front of him (should have played more and one of Southgate's few mistakes IMO) and I was a bit gob-smacked in the 3rd/4th playoff, seeing what Dier is actually capable of when thinking forward, instead of being purely defensive.

England have plenty to build on with this squad and the U20/U17 youngsters coming through. Can they do so? Who knows.

[Diggers]

So the FA have the biggest budget for any World Cup team. Stacked full of fitness training experts, but they just don't bother preparing. Just like all the other past British sides you talked about in your first post. Yeah, seems really likely.

I'm not saying they don't "bother" preparing. I'm saying they perhaps don't "prepare" to the conditions and the possible outcomes.

People said the same thing about the "fitness experts" of Tiger Moobs and that "of course he'd be doing things correctly"  because " how could a man with his resources not have the best team behind him) but he demonstrably didn't. Why could England not be the same, after all it's not like their "experts" have tournament winning coaches and fitness experts is it? How would they know how to prepare?

There's no guarantee that having supposed "experts" or "the most money" in your team means you are prepared properly.

England routinely fail in tournaments. Are they just not good enough, or do they not quite have the benefits of "marginal gains" that small countries like Croatia have.

Could a country of 4 million people just produce better players, or is their superior fitness regime part of the reason for their success too?


Looking back, England have made minor improvements on their dire tournaments of the last 20 years, which is of course all that was asked of them,  but they really did flatter to deceive. Low amount of shots on target, low amount of goals from open play etc. They struggled against any quality and only had a keeper to save them from a lacklustre Sweden. They didn't really do well in ANY game except for the whipping boys of Panama, who make Republic Of Ireland look good in a tournament.

They made a semi final of a tournament that you said they shouldn't bother going to, your exact words. If you think only the keeper kept them in it against Sweden then fine, I think that says quite a lot about your football knowledge.
Woods has had a long career at the very top of a sport, very few people do that, he's at worst the second best player to swing a club. You have no proof whatsoever that he would have been as successful doing things differently. None He's come back from an injury and is playing well.
Basically this comes down to the same thing, you and your strange childlike foibles/obsessions for disliking particular things.

[raycastleunited]

Masterclass from France. Outstanding gifted group of players, but their ability to play the occasion was unmatched.

They demonstrated the ability to outplay teams and also sit it and tough it out when under the kosh. At times they played possession football and at times they allowed the opposition to play in front of them. Deschamps should get a lot of credit for getting the defensive unit so organised but also generating the team spirit that saw Mbappe and the attacking players happy to chase back in a disciplined way. Bien joue les bleus.

Performance of the tournament: Belgium defeating Brazil.

[wiretapper]

Belguin - Brazil was my favourite game. Being played on a Friday night probably helped.

Nice to see France's defence getting plaudits. I though Varane was the player of the tournament, he was consistently excellent throughout. Although Modric, Hazard, and  Mbappe had outstanding performances I felt Varane was the most consistent.

And now a Champion's League and World Cup winner in the same season he'll be a shoe-in for the Balon D'Or, no?

[navyblueshorts]

Masterclass from France. Outstanding gifted group of players, but their ability to play the occasion was unmatched.

They demonstrated the ability to outplay teams and also sit it and tough it out when under the kosh. At times they played possession football and at times they allowed the opposition to play in front of them. Deschamps should get a lot of credit for getting the defensive unit so organised but also generating the team spirit that saw Mbappe and the attacking players happy to chase back in a disciplined way. Bien joue les bleus.

Performance of the tournament: Belgium defeating Brazil.

Agree with some of this, but they were outplayed bigtime on Sunday and with Croatia having to push as a result of two horrendous decisions, not surprisingly hit them again. Pogba's instantaneous second bite finish off his left foot was brilliant though.

Can't really abode them or the football they, generally, play. With individuals like that, they should be a better watch. That said, I'm sure I'd have happily taken it if England swapped places with them(!), although I'll never support anyone that thinks what Griezmann did to win that free kick is remotely OK. Until, and unless, FIFA allow retrospective cards/bans for that sort of behaviour, it'll continue to pollute the game.

[raycastleunited]

Don't really think you can say France were outplayed "big time". Sure there were periods where Croatia dominated, but France rode the storm, especially the 2nd half they seemed content to absorb the pressure and hit on the break. Croatia created few clear cut chances.

The Greizmann dive was disappointing, but Croatia can't feel they were hard done by for the goal. It was just another set piece.

[super_realist]

Diggers,
It's pretty common knowledge that Woods absurdly stupid swing is the reason behind his terribly weak knees and back.
If he had a team who actually knew about the physicality of golf, they might have been able to help him out, however, that level of "professional" golf was so new at that time as golf up until that part was barely professional in regards to how people behaved that any "experts" really didn't know how to deal with such a player in the long term, the same could be said for England "experts" they simply didn't know how to prepare a team properly for the tournament because none of the coaches had ever been there before. THey might have had the "Knowledge" but didn't apply it well.

England couldn't have got an easier ride, and they still looked very much second best. Croatia had done the equivalent of Kevin Anderson at Wimbledon and still looked fresher than England.

Of course, it's a tremendous feather in the cap to reach a semi, but it does appear to paper over the cracks a bit and make it seem like their improvement is more substantial that it actually was.
This was a pretty freakish World Cup in regards to who went home early and the way the draw worked out, I'd say that played a bigger part in England's progress than England suddenly becoming a top team.

[Diggers]

Croatia played 30 minutes more football than we did. That's it. Much as you'd like to rewrite history it's hardly a massive difference.

[westisbest]

So the FA have the biggest budget for any World Cup team. Stacked full of fitness training experts, but they just don't bother preparing. Just like all the other past British sides you talked about in your first post. Yeah, seems really likely.

I'm not saying they don't "bother" preparing. I'm saying they perhaps don't "prepare" to the conditions and the possible outcomes.

People said the same thing about the "fitness experts" of Tiger Moobs and that "of course he'd be doing things correctly"  because " how could a man with his resources not have the best team behind him) but he demonstrably didn't. Why could England not be the same, after all it's not like their "experts" have tournament winning coaches and fitness experts is it? How would they know how to prepare?

There's no guarantee that having supposed "experts" or "the most money" in your team means you are prepared properly.

England routinely fail in tournaments. Are they just not good enough, or do they not quite have the benefits of "marginal gains" that small countries like Croatia have.

Could a country of 4 million people just produce better players, or is their superior fitness regime part of the reason for their success too?


Looking back, England have made minor improvements on their dire tournaments of the last 20 years, which is of course all that was asked of them,  but they really did flatter to deceive. Low amount of shots on target, low amount of goals from open play etc. They struggled against any quality and only had a keeper to save them from a lacklustre Sweden. They didn't really do well in ANY game except for the whipping boys of Panama, who make Scotland look good in a tournament.

Changed that

[pedro]

West, that’s harsh on Panama...

[super_realist]

Croatia played 30 minutes more football than we did. That's it. Much as you'd like to rewrite history it's hardly a massive difference.

and yet England looked incredibly tired and Croatia looked far more sprightly. Explain that?

If half an hour is nothing, then it being a few degrees warmer and a few % more humid than "blighty" shouldn't make a difference either should it?, but apparently according to some people this is the bollox reason that people are saying England failed.

[navyblueshorts]

Don't really think you can say France were outplayed "big time". Sure there were periods where Croatia dominated, but France rode the storm, especially the 2nd half they seemed content to absorb the pressure and hit on the break. Croatia created few clear cut chances.

The Greizmann dive was disappointing, but Croatia can't feel they were hard done by for the goal. It was just another set piece.

Of course they can. It came from the free kick awarded for Greizmann's blatant cheating. Sure, they should have kept it out anyway, but had Greizmann not flopped to the floor in the absence of any contact, it never would have happened. There were periods where Croatia dominated - pretty much the entire first 60 minutes.
The 2nd half was obviously going to play out like it did, once France had been gifted 2 absurd decisions; Croatia had to up the ante, so it wasn't surprising France hit them on the counter. If not for the absurd officialdom, that's not likely to be how it would have played out.

Anyway, over now. Decent enough tournament overall. Don't know who the BBC gave their 'Goal of the Tournament' to, but the shortlist contained some pretty impressive goal scoring.

[Diggers]

Croatia played 30 minutes more football than we did. That's it. Much as you'd like to rewrite history it's hardly a massive difference.

and yet England looked incredibly tired and Croatia looked far more sprightly. Explain that?

If half an hour is nothing, then it being a few degrees warmer and a few % more humid than "blighty" shouldn't make a difference either should it?, but apparently according to some people this is the bollox reason that people are saying England failed.

The old some people line. Some people also think the world is flat. Most people accept that Croatia where a better side on the night. The reason we looked knackered is because they gave us the runaround tactically in the second half, we were always under pressure. We actually game into the game more in the first period of extra time when we sorted out our shape for a while. Same with the Columbia game. If you remotely understood football you'd get that. But you hate the game so why should you...but still watch every world cup match...and you think religious people are weird...bizarre.

[raycastleunited]

It's pretty common knowledge that Woods absurdly stupid swing is the reason behind his terribly weak knees and back.
If he had a team who actually knew about the physicality of golf, they might have been able to help him out, however, that level of "professional" golf was so new at that time as golf up until that part was barely professional in regards to how people behaved that any "experts" really didn't know how to deal with such a player in the long term, the same could be said for England "experts" they simply didn't know how to prepare a team properly for the tournament because none of the coaches had ever been there before. THey might have had the "Knowledge" but didn't apply it well.

This paragraph is full of waffly rubbish. You have truly excelled yourself.

Comparing mechanics of a golf swing with football fitness is painful, a really tortuous analogy.

I'd like to understand where your in depth knowledge of the physical preparation of the England team comes from. Who are the coaches? What was their training regime? Why was it inadequate? You must have really studied them closely, travelled to their training bases, etc.

Secondly, your diagnosis of Woods' swing and injuries also implies you have been studying him closely, watching his rehabilitation at home and on the range. Again, you must have a really powerful pair of binoculars and a huge amount of spare time to analyse all this. In reality, I really wouldn't be surprised if his knee injuries had nothing whatsoever to do with golf. More likely to be accidents in the gym / running / jumping around pretending to be a navy seal / motel room exertions with porn stars.

[super_realist]

I wasn't comparing the swing to football fitness. I was comparing that so called experts might not be applying their knowledge to benefit of their charges, just as so called experts might not have had the full knowledge they required for Toger Moobs "new era" of golf fitness.

I'm not saying anything definitively about the England team, I'm merely suggesting that they might not have prepared as effectively as other teams which appeared to suffer less physically probably due to naivety from coaches who had no idea how to prepare a team for a month long tournament.
So if England are as fit as other teams as you infer, then I'm assuming with all their population, money, facilities and experts that they just aren't as talented as a country of 4 million who have only been a country for 25 years?

Do you really think that T.Moobs injuries are down to gym work when he's repeating a swing possibly thousands of times a day? Part of the reason for his injury is the preposterous idea that "no one will out work him" as he frequently claimed. However, he obviously didn't work on his sparrow legs, so you can only assume that his injuries are entirely due to his mad axeman swing going through the very weak part of some string bean legs.

[beninho]

"So if England are as fit as other teams as you infer, then I'm assuming with all their population, money, facilities and experts that they just aren't as talented as a country of 4 million who have only been a country for 25 years?"

What does this even mean? Croatia deservedly beat England. It means Croatia played better on the day, if you want to assume the Croatian team are more talented then thats up to you, though clearly some of them are better players then we have produced, modric, rakitic, perisic, manzukic all superb players.

Do you also think Croatia are more talented tgen Argentina?

[Diggers]

Croatia are a good side, they were tipped to do well from the start, it wasn't a huge shock. It happens. Counties produce good teams.
Woods looks in fantastic shape right now, the vast majority of blokes still would give their right arm to be in as good nick.

[raycastleunited]

I'm not saying anything definitively about the England team, I'm merely suggesting that they might not have prepared as effectively as other teams which appeared to suffer less physically probably due to naivety from coaches who had no idea how to prepare a team for a month long tournament.

The only time I thought England suffered physically was in ET against Croatia. They looked tired because Croatia gave them the run around in the 2nd half. Did you see the other matches which went to ET? Did you see how tired Denmark and Russia looked against Croatia? Because they looked knackered. The same for Russia against Spain.

So your hypothesis is rubbish.

[raycastleunited]

Do you really think that T.Moobs injuries are down to gym work when he's repeating a swing possibly thousands of times a day? Part of the reason for his injury is the preposterous idea that "no one will out work him" as he frequently claimed. However,  he obviously didn't work on his sparrow legs, so you can only assume that his injuries are entirely due to his mad axeman swing going through the very weak part of some string bean legs.

We need to ask some questions here.

Firstly, "moobs"? Look like rock solid pecs to me, probably got a six pack below them, but then I've never seen him naked (you have?). Pretty fine specimen as diggers pointed out, you've got to be pretty jealous to criticise his physique.

Secondly, "mad axe swing"? Looks pretty good to me, at times it has given him total control of his ball flight. Probably a better swing than Rory or Louis, even though not as aesthetically pleasing. Again, jealousy?

[Sponsored content]