Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Vacamion

Post Match - England 1 - Croatia 2 (AET)

Recommended Posts

England have aren’t respect, with what we are winning at youth level for the past 4 years, this is a new age and we should be proud, Do you think the Germans in 2010 with their young side felt bad, no there is something happening with this team 

Edited by foxes_rule1978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Kane looked bemused and on the verge of exhaustion for most of the match. Lingard and Rashford still don't have a real football intelligence. Sterling impressed tonight, and there was good interplay at times - but not where it counted. It's easy to blame but Kane was the man who should have been at the centre of the attacks and he was missing. Alli was ok and did endeavour to put a maximum effort in but his performances for Spurs show where his priorities lie.

Trippier was, again, the main source of inventiveness and his goal was superb but as time went on, without a follow-up, the Croatians began to recover - in the end, they were almost playing England off the park.

I don't see a team with Lingard and Rashford representing the future. Unless Kane and Alli commit to the national side then neither do they.

Mags was vying with Trippier for MotM for England - Pickford not far behind. Southgate did the best he could with the materials at hand but were are the English players who can emulate Rakitic, Modric and the likes? Like some have said - France would have been too strong and I think they will be so for Croatia - but I hope the minnows make it hard for them.

The press have flattered England - forming a fantasy about a team which was only sporadically sharp and had stumbled into this position. Best not to pay them any mind.

Lost in all the excitement with the win over Sweden was how fatigued Kane clearly was. Possible he was even carrying an injury, too. With the exception of Glenn Hoddle, the pundits were blissfully oblivious to it in the days leading up to Croatia. He didn't do anything wrong in that game, but he was flat-footed and looked visibly uncomfortable. No way he was going to get his energy back in time for Croatia. But how do you bench the captain and team talisman? Tough choice for Southgate. Myself, if I were the manager, I'd have bit the bullet, risked team resentment and public ridicule and outrage, and thrown the dice with Welbeck starting in Kane's place. Fresh legs are always the best avenue to take. If Vardy's groin wasn't such a question mark, I'd have started him over Kane in a flash.

Edited by Pentatonic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

But good enough to easily beat us - is that what's making you proud?

Not sure how we were "easily beaten" when we lead for the majority of the game and we're only behind for 11 minutes of the whole tie. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without trawling through the whole thread has the sustained intelligent pressing of the Croatian team been discussed? We were forced to play around at the back twenty yards deeper than previous games and generally lump it forward rather than play through the midfield and into feet?  Southgate was out thought tactically before and during the game by the young and inexperienced Croatian coach who had been shown to be lacking in that regard on occasions earlier in the tournement. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woke up early this morning and don’t mind saying it, I feel flat as a fart. We’ll not get a better chance than we had last night and the cold reality is that we didn’t have the killer instinct.

We should have been out of sight by half time and the sight of Harry Kane. struggling to even run by mid-way through the second half, was a little silly I’m afraid. Southgate has done an exceptional job this World Cup, but some of his decisions last night were hard to fathom.

Oh well, cheer up and look forward to getting back to supporting the bread and butter. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Something that struck me watching you last night is the myth of Kane and Vardy. 

 

Repeatedly we've been told that Jamie Vardy and England aren't a match, that England don't play football like Leicester, that their style doesn't suit Vardy, they don't play his way. 

 

Watching last night it occurred to me that your style doesn't suit Kane, either. I'm not sure it suits a striker at all. Tottenham flood the opposition third, throw the kitchen sink, create chances all over the place and channel them all through Harry Kane. It doesn't matter what % of shots he misses or how many he needs to score, by sheer weight of numbers he's going to find the net. 

 

I can barely remember him having a sniff at this world cup that wasn't from a set piece. 

 

The lack of creativity leaves him strolling around up top with very little to do, when you do push forward and flood the final third (think Tunisia) it was the faster players like Lingard and Sterling that the chances fell to who had the mobility and agility to find space in the box on a surge. 

 

Kane is a penalty box poacher above all things and if you don't actually get the ball in and around the box all that much then he's just as wasted as Vardy is perceived to be against a high line. 

 

I genuinely think JV would have suited the game more last night than Kane against two centre halves who'd have bobbed themselves at the extra pace. 

 

It's a shame that it was probably Vardy's last chance at tournament football and he barely got a look. As well as Southgate has done, I think his either refusal or inability to work out how to use both of his strikers will ultimately hold him back going forward if he can't overcome it. 

 

You can't struggle for goals all tournament while leaving a 20 goal forward on the bench.

 

While I agree with the premise of your argument, they've scored 12 goals in 6 games, isn't that their best return at a world cup ever?

 

Granted half were against Panama and 9 came from set pieces/penalties so they've not used their strikers properly in open play, they've not exactly struggled for goals

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

While I agree with the premise of your argument, they've scored 12 goals in 6 games, isn't that their best return at a world cup ever?

 

Granted half were against Panama and 9 came from set pieces/penalties so they've not used their strikers properly in open play, they've not exactly struggled for goals

We didn't actually create much though. We scored the vast majority of our goals from set pieces. That's fine they are an important part of the game, but when you step back and think you've got a striker who scored 25 plus goals in the last three seasons and one on the bench who's got 20 plus and neither really had a sniff of goal from open play. So for me, the style of play, whilst looking good at times, wasn't really that effective, and when it came to to crunch it came up short.

 

Yes we scored more goals than ever before, but numbers don't always tell you the full story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

We didn't actually create much though. We scored the vast majority of our goals from set pieces. That's fine they are an important part of the game, but when you step back and think you've got a striker who scored 25 plus goals in the last three seasons and one on the bench who's got 20 plus and neither really had a sniff of goal from open play. So for me, the style of play, whilst looking good at times, wasn't really that effective, and when it came to to crunch it came up short.

 

Yes we scored more goals than ever before, but numbers don't always tell you the full story.

Yeah, and I did acknowledge that in the second paragraph, but saying you struggled for goals isn't quite right - you struggled to utilise your attacking talent properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

While I agree with the premise of your argument, they've scored 12 goals in 6 games, isn't that their best return at a world cup ever?

 

Granted half were against Panama and 9 came from set pieces/penalties so they've not used their strikers properly in open play, they've not exactly struggled for goals

 

You pretty much answered your own question there tbf. 

 

They struggled for goals. Brilliant defensively, by and large, but ineffectual going forward and overly reliant on set pieces. 

 

You isolate panama as an exception to your data and you're looking at about a goal a game with none (or one? Am I missing one?) coming from open play. 

Edited by Finnegan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We played to our strengths, we knew we didn't have the quality to beat teams in open play so we played for set pieces.

 

When Vardy played against Belgium he didn't get a sniff and everyone said it was because he didn't get any service. Nobody got any service yesterday either. Bringing on Jamie wouldn't have changed anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said two things at half time: 

 

1) For how instrumental Southgate has been in transforming the England team, my only real criticism so far is being too slow to the sub.

 

2) If we score the second goal quick they’ll collapse. Otherwise we’ll be in trouble. 

 

I still stand by both those points. Southgate’s reluctance really cost us and I believe had we made the necessary subs at half time we would have punished them. 

Edited by Finnaldo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

I said two things at half time: 

 

1) For how instrumental Southgate has been in transforming the England team, my only real criticism so far is being too slow to the sub.

 

2) If we score the second goal quick they’ll collapse. Otherwise we’ll be in trouble. 

 

I still I’ll stand by both those points. Southgate’s reluctance really cost us and I believe had we made the necessary subs at half time we would have punished them. 

Spot on.  In interviews they were all talking about how its a squad game, but Gareth had decided who he could trust and there was nobody outside the 1st 11.  Dier as a sub, the safest sub in the world, showed he just wanted a foot on the ball and didnt believe in a positive change

 

He said as much after the match, saying he saw no changes he could make that would make a difference

 

Based on performances in the tournament I disagree.  Alli has been poor, Loftus Cheek has shown he can come on and make a difference, same as Rashford

 

We persisted with 'the 11', did not use the squad and its definitely one of the things that cost us, made it easy for Croatia to get a hold of the game

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southgate seemed to have taken a tactical decision to play more direct last night. We certainly weren't playing much of the positive possession football that we had in some earlier games - even during the 1st half when we were on top.

 

If so, that wasn't necessarily a bad call as midfield is very much Croatia's strong point (unlike previous opponents). Our pace and directness did bother them 1st half and if we'd taken another of our 1st half chances, we might well have won.

 

However, in the 2nd half, with it still only 1-0 and Croatia dominating possession to put us under pressure, I wonder if we should have brought an extra midfielder on earlier?

Admittedly, we weren't over-endowed with options, but even, say, bringing on Dier for Alli after an hour might have allowed us to retain possession, resist pressure and get less tired chasing around (the wing-backs were shattered by 70 mins).

 

Better possession might then have allowed Vardy to come on earlier to play a role with through balls - though I can understand Southgate not wanting to sub off his captain, even if he wasn't achieving that much in this particular game.

 

Small margins, as ever. If we'd scored a second goal in the first half, I think we'd have probably won....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the dier for henderson swap always baffles me. dier isnt anywhere near as good as henderson, but they were to play together in holding roles we could have perhaps shored up the midfield a little better, alli and lingard were offering nothing all game anyway. play kane in a number 10 role with vardy ahead since he drops deep all the time anyway and sterling was doing the running

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easier to take when you get what you deserve. For a country so small, Croatia produce a shitload of great players. You only have to look at the clubs their first XI represent. I think we're better side than we showed last night, but we shit the bed as soon as Croatia equalised. 

 

In fairness to Southgate, I was calling for Kane to be dragged off against Tunisia because he didn't do anything other than his opening goal and then he gets the winner in the 91st minute. No questioning he got things wrong, but I think people are going OTT.

 

I hope France beat Croatia, because it'll be hard to take if Croatia go on and win the World Cup. They'd been bang average in all knockout games until the second half last night.

 

I hope this tournament pushes England forward, but it probably won't. France almost certainly would've beaten us, but still what a chance we had. 45 minutes away from the World Cup final when we'd only had a good tournament and not a great one. 

 

Unlucky lads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sad day for English football. We've done ok but really not much more than that. Let's face it we beat Tunisia (just), Panama, Colombia and Sweden. None are powerhouses of world football and really I would have been  disappointed had we not beaten any of those teams.

Croatia were the first decent side we played in a meaningful match and we came up short. For me the midfield is the issue, there's just not enough creativity in there. With players as limited as Henederson and Dier it is hard to see us win the world cup or any other major tournament for that matter. I'm not blaming them as they appear to be the best we have but we need to unearth some better midfielders for the future.

Still at least an improvement on the last time and they can come home with their heads held high. Hope they can beat Belgium now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Southgate seemed to have taken a tactical decision to play more direct last night. We certainly weren't playing much of the positive possession football that we had in some earlier games - even during the 1st half when we were on top.

 

If so, that wasn't necessarily a bad call as midfield is very much Croatia's strong point (unlike previous opponents). Our pace and directness did bother them 1st half and if we'd taken another of our 1st half chances, we might well have won.

 

However, in the 2nd half, with it still only 1-0 and Croatia dominating possession to put us under pressure, I wonder if we should have brought an extra midfielder on earlier?

Admittedly, we weren't over-endowed with options, but even, say, bringing on Dier for Alli after an hour might have allowed us to retain possession, resist pressure and get less tired chasing around (the wing-backs were shattered by 70 mins).

 

Better possession might then have allowed Vardy to come on earlier to play a role with through balls - though I can understand Southgate not wanting to sub off his captain, even if he wasn't achieving that much in this particular game.

 

Small margins, as ever. If we'd scored a second goal in the first half, I think we'd have probably won....

That’s why it was silly to make him captain in the first place 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the knives are straight back out, stay classy Foxestalk. 

 

I'm strangely not as gutted as I thought I would be. Got that sinking feeling when they equalised and when they took the lead it was just more acceptance of the inevitable, there was only one winner after half time. I was an absolute wreck for the Columbia game but last night was different, can't say why. 

 

Still a fantastic tournament, never thought the national team would ever replicate moment that I would enjoy as much as City do, but this lot did. Onwards and upwards! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Southgate seemed to have taken a tactical decision to play more direct last night. We certainly weren't playing much of the positive possession football that we had in some earlier games - even during the 1st half when we were on top.

 

If so, that wasn't necessarily a bad call as midfield is very much Croatia's strong point (unlike previous opponents). Our pace and directness did bother them 1st half and if we'd taken another of our 1st half chances, we might well have won.

 

However, in the 2nd half, with it still only 1-0 and Croatia dominating possession to put us under pressure, I wonder if we should have brought an extra midfielder on earlier?

Admittedly, we weren't over-endowed with options, but even, say, bringing on Dier for Alli after an hour might have allowed us to retain possession, resist pressure and get less tired chasing around (the wing-backs were shattered by 70 mins).

 

Better possession might then have allowed Vardy to come on earlier to play a role with through balls - though I can understand Southgate not wanting to sub off his captain, even if he wasn't achieving that much in this particular game.

 

Small margins, as ever. If we'd scored a second goal in the first half, I think we'd have probably won....

We needed to take a centre half off and replace with a midfielder.  They went for three up front second half, the wide men pegging our wing backs into full backs leaving three centre halves against one striker and overruning our midfield with numerical advantage.  Southgate had no answer.  

 

Pace was the only thing we had that really bothered Croatia.  Vardy should have been used much earlier.

 

It just feels like an unnecessary defeat.  We could have finished them off first half and we could have been tactically better in the second.  It also looked like they wanted it more.  We looked like we were bullied at times.

 

 

Edited by murphy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...