Planetarion Forums

Achilles · 10 Jun 2006, 16:05

Having just watched the first England game I have to say I've seen a lot of things that would seriously concern me if it was my national team. Not just for this World Cup but for the future aswell. There are a few specific points I'd like to discuss.

1) 4 Strikers. This is generous since one of them is Theo Walcott and Rooney is carrying an injury. Now I agree with the decision to bring both, or at the very least I won't second guess it. Theo is a good player and will likely be a great one and for that reason he would have been a perfectly valid choice for a fifth striker. Rooney is Rooney. However, all this talk of using Gerrard up front or playing Joe Cole off the front man is nonsense. I'd very rarely use such firm phrasing on an issue of such relativity but in this case I feel I'm justified. Ericson can't even pick a squad with the right proportion of players it seems. When he had it right by accident he sent Defoe home. If this was my nation I would cry sabotage.

2) Half Time. EVERY single England match I have seen recently has seen them come out after half time looking completely bedraggled. This is extremely worrying. Half time is vital to reorganise your team, to explain to your players where the opponents are weakest and how to exploit that. It is not the time to tell your players to all drop back and let the opposition play when you had just spent 45 minutes kicking the shit out of them. This, in my opinion, is Englands single greatest worry. You can't win games consistently if you are consistently much worse in the second haf than the first.

3) The Future - Steve McClaren. This is the final (avoiding tl:dr) and probably the most controversial point I'm going to make. He's not good enough, he's not even close. He is currently involved in the English setup with Ericson and seems to share many of his beliefs. If he doesn't agree with them he should have quit long ago. The fact remains then that he is either a sycophant or a fool and neither is desirable. There are vested interests in the FA that chose to use Scolaris rejection of England to discredit David Dein and champion McClarens cause. This is not the way to pick your future manager.

To conclude, I have always been a fan of the English Premiership and, sans Irish participation, I wish the English team the best of luck. But I think they're going to need it.

Leshy · 10 Jun 2006, 16:10

Regarding point number two, I'd suggest that the England squad peruse more tea and scones during half-time. That should get those chaps in a jolly mood for a much better second half.

Anyways, congratulations on your win, but you definitely had an easy match there and need to pick up to mount a serious challenge against better competitors. I reckon Sweden will be the real test during the group stages.

Edit: To whomever it may concern, the English are not a race. I may be a culturalist for this post, but not a racist.

Deffeh · 10 Jun 2006, 16:29

Paraguay were always going to be a challenge, england dont play south american opposition that often.

Erikksons subsitutions were rank.

Isolating crouch was a terrible terrible idea - it showed he didnt have faith in Walcott and hes stuck with a gamble he was too proud to buckle out of. It should have been OBVIOUS to him in training that Defoe is a better player NOW than walcott is - who knows about the future? Crouch needed support and got **** all from anyone. Gerrard and Lampard were knackered and one of them should have been subbed.

Plusses : Joe Cole was great. Crouch was the most important player on the pitch.
Minuses : Ashley Cole and Gary Neville MIA on the flanks, gerrard and lampards shooting wasnt great - a 1-0 win from an own goal, despite being the better team, isnt too encouraging.

Dace · 10 Jun 2006, 16:30

I thouroughly enjoyed the spectacle this afternoon.

milo · 10 Jun 2006, 16:32

its quite amazing really, regardless of what players you put in the england team when they start playing competitive matches they play with exactly the same level of mediocrity. A rather fortunate goal aside this was hardly the performance of a team wanting to win the world cup, over all id say the honours were equal with paraguay.

I don't even see what rooney could bring to the game, england get pushed to their own half the defenders get the ball and can't do anything with it.

We're meant to have the strongest midfield in the tournament, i know about the brazil superstar square but that isn't really a proper midfield with players capable of going box to box - they're more forwards with auxilary forwards putting constant pressure on the defence. With Cole, Gerrard, Lampard and Beckham how the **** do we get pushed back?

Oh and please please tell them to stop using the 'its too hot' excuse, when has the world cup not been played in draining conditions?

Japan was too hot, thats why we lost to brazil it was too hot, but don't worry in germany we'll be playing in europe under premiership conditions, oh wait its too hot again.

Leshy · 10 Jun 2006, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I blame the giant spider hanging over the pitch. I reckon it put the players off.

I don't know, Robinson did try to kill it.

KoeN · 10 Jun 2006, 16:48

FANTASTIC match!

sjn · 10 Jun 2006, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Erikksons subsitutions were rank.

where as Paraguays were amazing i mean at some point they managed to swap the ref for a Paraguay player :/

Deffeh · 10 Jun 2006, 17:08

Yeah, the ref was appalling. He kept penalising crouch needlessly and the crouch and gerrard bookings were bollocks.

Incidentally, does anyone know whether there is a "yellow card amnesty" like last world cup?

Ie if you only pick up one yellow in the group stages it gets wiped out for the knockout stages?

gzambo · 10 Jun 2006, 17:22

dont book time off for the later stages to watch england because errikson will not get them there ,
with that squad available you could win this world cup and possibly the next but with him as manager ur screwed , mcclaren wont do any better

Deffeh · 10 Jun 2006, 18:25

if they beat trinidad, which they will, they are but sure to face (probably) ecuador in the 2nd round, which they would probably win.

In the QFs they probably have to face either holland or argentina, and are able to give either a go, though on that performance, you wouldnt back them

Dace · 10 Jun 2006, 19:03

Jim Rosenthal apparantly can't count.

"If England beat Trinidad and Tobago in 5 days time then they will have won their group"

Ohhhh really? What if Sweden beat England and Paraguay?

lokken · 10 Jun 2006, 19:05

Trinidad and Tobago just performed a rear guard action i'd have been proud of.

Absolutely outstanding commitment.

England were alright today, doubt the heat helped, although anyone who thinks joe cole is any good needs their head checking. The fact is we can only sit back 2 in front, not 1 because we aren't italy and sven needs to learn fast.

Tomkat · 10 Jun 2006, 19:06

Yes Erikkson is rubbish I'm wondering why the FA haven't decided to replace him oh wait they have

MrL_JaKiri · 10 Jun 2006, 19:10

England have always started tournaments slowly, for whatever reason. A win, over a reasonably strong team (at least better the Ecuador, who gave the poles something of a seeing to last night), is the best you're going to get.

Furthermore, both Joe Cole and Steven Gerrard have played in "rampaging forward" mode for their respective clubs on many occasions, so to suggest it nonsense is to ignore that they have put in many, many good performances at the far end of the pitch.

England generally aren't worse in the second half; it's just that Sven likes to sit back and defend the early lead, which is not a good thing and is a valid criticism of him.

As for the third point, it had nothing to do with Eriksson (if you're going to make a thread about someone, at least try and spell their name correctly so you don't look completely retarded), and I don't think anyone with any footballing nous actually wanted McClaren, not that I personally know anyway.

JonnyBGood · 10 Jun 2006, 19:23

You're still looking an unfortunately imbalanced team in england. They seem to produce a surplus of attacking midfielders and central defenders but no holding midfielders worth a piss in the wind and a complete lack of wide players. This, ably aided and abetted by a manager who'd still play his best eleven players even if two of them were goalkeepers and who possesses the tactical nous of a mildly retarded gerbil, leads to dramatic underperformance at the best of times. England did better in euro 96 and france 98 with worse teams. You could pay a division three manager 4 million to do eriksson's job and I honestly cannot imagine how he'd do worse.

Nodrog · 10 Jun 2006, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

England have always started tournaments slowly, for whatever reason. A win, over a reasonably strong team (at least better the Ecuador, who gave the poles something of a seeing to last night), is the best you're going to get.

I only watched the first half but Paraguay were appalling

Achilles · 10 Jun 2006, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Furthermore, both Joe Cole and Steven Gerrard have played in "rampaging forward" mode for their respective clubs on many occasions, so to suggest it nonsense is to ignore that they have put in many, many good performances at the far end of the pitch.

This is bollocks. Both of them have played as attacking midfielders for their clubs on many occasions*. This is not the same as playing as a striker nor is it a good reason to think they are suddenly capable of playing as strikers. It is definately not reason enough to think you can go to the World Cup with 2 fit strikers, a semi-crocked Rooney and an untested kid.

Quote:

England generally aren't worse in the second half;

The statistics tell me that you are wrong. Under Svens reign England have scored the vast majority of their goals in the first half and have conceded the vast majority of goals scored against them in the second. This is doubly true in competitive competition where England have failed to score in the second half since Moses parted the Red Sea.

Quote:

As for the third point, it had nothing to do with Eriksson

Did you even read what I said? My point was that if McClaren is just a mini-Eriksson then I believe it's a mistake to appoint him. If he's a sycophantic wanker then it's an even bigger mistake. If you think it isn't then perhaps you could actually state a reason why?

*I accept that Joe Cole has played as a second forward for Chelsea (who play 4-5-1 by choice) and that Gerrard had one game up front for Liverpool at some point.

milo · 10 Jun 2006, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I only watched the first half but Paraguay were appalling

i wouldn't say appalling just not as good as england (and this is england with much better players on paper) they improved in the second half and england, well england do something* to themselves at half time that renders them crap.

*take drugs or drink or lol listen to their manager some more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

England have always started tournaments slowly, for whatever reason.

and crash out in the second round or quarter final which essentially backs up their level of performance in the group stage, this time it was meant to be different.

Quote:

England generally aren't worse in the second half; it's just that Sven likes to sit back and defend the early lead, which is not a good thing and is a valid criticism of him.

They are worse! much worse! that could well be down to the sven but whatever the reason its ****ing annoying.

wu_trax · 11 Jun 2006, 00:17

Why is it always the coach and never the players?
The goal was great, but other than that...
Anyway, Trinidad shouldnt be much of a problem and that should be the next round.

MrL_JaKiri · 11 Jun 2006, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

and crash out in the second round or quarter final

Or the Semi Final. Unless you think, for example, the 1-1 draw with Switzerland at the start of Euro 96 represented England racing out of the blocks.

KoeN · 11 Jun 2006, 10:46

forza Leo "Don Ballon" Beenhakker. \0/

milo · 11 Jun 2006, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Or the Semi Final. Unless you think, for example, the 1-1 draw with Switzerland at the start of Euro 96 represented England racing out of the blocks.

'this time it was meant to be different'

Ste · 11 Jun 2006, 14:42

Here's my take on it:

I dunno why so many non-english people are saying "lol that was grate" and stuff.
We won. Sweden didn't.

We looked solid enough defensibly. We looked out of ideas up front although Crouch, Beckham and J. Cole played well.

Eriksson should have brought a fifth striker, or had the confidence to bring Walcott on yesterday.
Why the hell was Hargreaves brought on. Carrick is miles better.
Gerrard and Lampard don't play well together in the middle. STILL.

The ref was awful.

Hopefully we'll improve for the next game but it's hardly a nightmare start.

Oh and how good did the Ivory Coast look? Argentina were very lucky to beat them.

JonnyBGood · 11 Jun 2006, 15:13

Why does sweden's result make england's any better? LOOK SOMEONE ELSE IS WORSE THAN US! Nobody was saying you wouldn't get out of the group. It's just that second favourites tag behind Brazil that's rather confusing.

furball · 11 Jun 2006, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I think its interesting that Gary Neville is often found racing up the wing.

That's one of my favourite parts of his game - superb going forward and crossing the ball into the centre.

furball · 11 Jun 2006, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Why does sweden's result make england's any better? LOOK SOMEONE ELSE IS WORSE THAN US! Nobody was saying you wouldn't get out of the group. It's just that second favourites tag behind Brazil that's rather confusing.

I'd say we're only listed as second favourites at the bookies because people automatically bet on England. That means that we are under-priced.