Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BotleySaint said:

Actually suits him I think. He's not blessed with great pace but has good control and dribbling ability.

I have always liked Luke Shaw. His face didn't fit with Van Gaal and Mourinho but he has had a good season and deserves his Euro place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't have the excitement levels of yesterdays games for sure, but thankfully Germany are just a little rubbish nowadays and we wore them down in the end. I'm still not entirely sure if the game plan is to bore the pants off of everyone on purpose, but to be fair it worked.

Maguire was my man of the match, his nut was on everything. Closely followed by Kalvin Phillips who was equally everywhere.

The atmosphere though, wow. What I'd have given to be there. It was like the old days of the camera shaking due to the atmosphere.

Now the tournament has started!

Edited by S-Clarke
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the England game started at 8pm and only realised it was 5pm when people started leaving work early but I'd arranged a meeting and missed the first 20 minutes. Turns out I didn't even vaguely celebrate when England scored either goal. Weird, because even though I'm a bit apathetic about international football I thought that would get me excited but it didn't.

Conversely I then watched the Tour de France highlights after not knowing the result and jumped up out of the chair, fist pumped and cheered when Cavendish won the sprint. 

  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read that all four teams from the group of death - Portugal, Hungary, France and Germany - are all out of the competition.

Group of dead.

Edited by CB Fry
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Cat said:

I thought the England game started at 8pm and only realised it was 5pm when people started leaving work early but I'd arranged a meeting and missed the first 20 minutes. Turns out I didn't even vaguely celebrate when England scored either goal. Weird, because even though I'm a bit apathetic about international football I thought that would get me excited but it didn't.

Conversely I then watched the Tour de France highlights after not knowing the result and jumped up out of the chair, fist pumped and cheered when Cavendish won the sprint. 

Hate to break it to you but you’ve become old and/or boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As with Saints matches, I prefer to concentrate on the game and not look at the pessimistic shite posted on here in match threads. Then, after a well deserved victory, it is always amusing to read all that the forum experts posted. I'm sure some is purely just pessimism, whilst desperately hoping for the opposite outcome; but I am also sure there is an equal measure of people really thinking they know more about football than those who have made a career, and a very good living, in the game. The latter of these generally tend to be the 'I'm always right in my opinion' type of person - who will no doubt take umbrage to these words.

Anyway, well done Gareth Southgate and England. I would much rather that type of match, and outcome, than concede 3 and go to extra-time - and most certainly more so than penalties!! Kept to the game plan and got the deserved win.

All 3 CBs were fantastic; Walker my pick of them. Shaw was great in the 2nd half - assisted the first and created the second. Rice and Phillips both very poor in the 1st half, but got better as the match wore on. Sterling excellent throughout (probably just my MoM, ahead of Walker and then Shaw); Saka did really well, as did Grealish when he replaced him (especially his involvement in both goals); Kane shite until the goal. And a special mention to Jordan Pickford, who I think is a limited goalkeeper for Everton but, boy did he pull off a couple of very good saves today!! 

Can see an England Vs Italy final on the horizon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get this obsession with wining an “exciting game” and the contrasting of our result with others that attacked and excited everyone. Here’s the thing, if you play in an open and exciting way, unless you’re absolutely head and shoulders above the rest, one day you’ll get beat. The French did, the Danes & Spanish nearly did. If those 2 & the Belgians continue to be open, they’ll get beat as well. The best 2 sides have been England & Italy. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

Hate to break it to you but you’ve become old and/or boring.

I still go mental when Saints score though, if I was old and boring wouldn't it apply to that too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t get this obsession with wining an “exciting game” and the contrasting of our result with others that attacked and excited everyone. Here’s the thing, if you play in an open and exciting way, unless you’re absolutely head and shoulders above the rest, one day you’ll get beat. The French did, the Danes & Spanish nearly did. If those 2 & the Belgians continue to be open, they’ll get beat as well. The best 2 sides have been England & Italy. 
 

 

Here’s another thing, if you play boring negative football you will also get beat but surely it is better to get knocked out trying to win than to get knocked out trying not to lose?

As for the best sides, Denmark look pretty good to me.

Edited by sadoldgit
Add
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Here’s another thing, if you play boring negative football you will also get beat but surely it is better to get knocked out trying to win than to get knocked out trying not to lose?

As for the best sides, Denmark look pretty good to me.

Thanks, you’ve illustrated the point that some don’t understand. 
 

We can only win this by continuing to play as we have been. If you can’t see that that’s not really a lot of point discussing further. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t get this obsession with wining an “exciting game” and the contrasting of our result with others that attacked and excited everyone. Here’s the thing, if you play in an open and exciting way, unless you’re absolutely head and shoulders above the rest, one day you’ll get beat. The French did, the Danes & Spanish nearly did. If those 2 & the Belgians continue to be open, they’ll get beat as well. The best 2 sides have been England & Italy. 
 

 

There’s no doubt that it feels a bit worse to go out playing like we do if it doesn’t work, it’s certainly not unbeatable. You’re always going to feel like we could have taken more risks and got a different result.

Oooh, equaliser, now the Sweden game is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

If someone hasn’t already photoshopped the CCTV of Hancock with his hand on the woman’s buns onto that screen, I’m very disappointed.

That is so sweet!

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from pub and worse for wear.  Can I assume the thread was full of wrist slitters decrying the tactics of our tactical genius Gareth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t get this obsession with wining an “exciting game” and the contrasting of our result with others that attacked and excited everyone. Here’s the thing, if you play in an open and exciting way, unless you’re absolutely head and shoulders above the rest, one day you’ll get beat. The French did, the Danes & Spanish nearly did. If those 2 & the Belgians continue to be open, they’ll get beat as well. The best 2 sides have been England & Italy. 
 

 

What complete and utter pony. If being boring and defensive wins you tournaments then we would have won far more of them. This isn’t the first time we’ve been defensive. Germany didn’t win the World Cup in ‘90 by being defensive, Italy didn’t in’ ‘82, Brazil in ‘70, France in ‘98, Spain, etc etc. If you don’t create enough chances then you get beat by a team that does eventually. Sure you have to have a sound defensive base and a good balance but boring and defensive on it’s own isn’t enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chez said:

fine lines. Muller scores and who knows what happens. For me the 5 at the back doesn't work and leaves CBs not marking strikers. What do I know though.

I have to say "I told you so" to all those who wrote off England's chances against Germany, but I also have to say that for a team with 7 defensive players on the pitch, we didn't half concede a few chances. Germany are not great and I was expecting us to be more solid, though we did the business with the goals we scored

Edited by Ex Lion Tamer
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

What complete and utter pony. If being boring and defensive wins you tournaments then we would have won far more of them. This isn’t the first time we’ve been defensive. Germany didn’t win the World Cup in ‘90 by being defensive, Italy didn’t in’ ‘82, Brazil in ‘70, France in ‘98, Spain, etc etc. If you don’t create enough chances then you get beat by a team that does eventually. Sure you have to have a sound defensive base and a good balance but boring and defensive on it’s own isn’t enough.

If you bothered to read what I wrote you’d have seen the words “ unless your head & shoulders above the rest”. If you think we are, then crack on. I don’t, The French are better, the Belgians are better , the Spain side are better. The only way we’ll win this is like the Greeks did, like the Portuguese did. 0 goals conceded, 3 out of 4 games won. That’ll do for me. Who cares if it’s fucking boring. Tell the Greeks you don’t win tournaments by bring boring, tell the Portuguese. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

What complete and utter pony. If being boring and defensive wins you tournaments then we would have won far more of them. This isn’t the first time we’ve been defensive. Germany didn’t win the World Cup in ‘90 by being defensive, Italy didn’t in’ ‘82, Brazil in ‘70, France in ‘98, Spain, etc etc. If you don’t create enough chances then you get beat by a team that does eventually. Sure you have to have a sound defensive base and a good balance but boring and defensive on it’s own isn’t enough.

*cough*

Greece Euro 2004!

Euro 2004 Sport GIF by UEFA

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

Ooof.

Feels like the result of that challenge was worse than the intent. Definitely a red though.

Not for me, the ref has been very trigger happy with the cards. The lad got the ball there, and had no chance of getting his foot out of the way

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

What complete and utter pony. If being boring and defensive wins you tournaments then we would have won far more of them. This isn’t the first time we’ve been defensive. Germany didn’t win the World Cup in ‘90 by being defensive, Italy didn’t in’ ‘82, Brazil in ‘70, France in ‘98, Spain, etc etc. If you don’t create enough chances then you get beat by a team that does eventually. Sure you have to have a sound defensive base and a good balance but boring and defensive on it’s own isn’t enough.

I don't believe we didn't win tournaments because we were defensive and boring. We didn't win tournaments because we are, for the most part, utter dogshit in tournaments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, egg said:

Not for me, the ref has been very trigger happy with the cards. The lad got the ball there, and had no chance of getting his foot out of the way

Ref had no choice, he’s endangered his opponent, intent doesn’t matter for that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Ref had no choice, he’s endangered his opponent, intent doesn’t matter for that.

If you win the ball, you win the ball. His leg was in a natural position after. It hurt the lad, but not a red for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

Ref had no choice, he’s endangered his opponent, intent doesn’t matter for that.

So the only way for him to avoid a red in that situation is not to attempt to go for the ball in the first place?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trousers said:

So the only way for him to avoid a red in that situation is not to attempt to go for the ball in the first place?

Or to not plant his studs in his opponent’s knee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Or to not plant his studs in his opponent’s knee.

Explain what he was supposed to with his foot after winning the ball?! 

Trousers is correct. He went for the ball and won it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, egg said:

If you win the ball, you win the ball. His leg was in a natural position after. It hurt the lad, but not a red for me. 

Agree. No intent, unfortunate injury. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not been watching the whole match: why is everyone rolling around on the floor and/or limping off?

It's like a Crimean War field hospital out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Or to not plant his studs in his opponent’s knee.

But he only did that as a consequence of going for the ball (which he got). How could he do both in that scenario? (i.e make contact with the ball AND avoid making contact with the opponent's knee?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

But he only did that as a consequence of going for the ball (which he got). How could he do both in that scenario? (i.e make contact with the ball AND avoid making contact with the opponent's knee?)

law-12---interpretations-of-the-laws-of-
Like I said, intent doesn’t matter, so in effect, no, he couldn’t win the ball legally there if he couldn’t do it without going through the player like that.

image.jpeg.6b0389e170c0744165a8c58f0fcaa32d.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John D said:

Intent isn't a factor anymore 

Does anyone know the rationale for FIFA changing the rule in this regard? Seems illogical to me. Yes, of course it's unfortunate if someone gets injured unintentionally but where's the logic in penalising someone for getting the ball in a tackle, which after all is the aim of the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})