Hullfox Posted 17 June 2006 Posted 17 June 2006 What - no Hargreaves then? If he start on Tuesday, there's a good chance he'll retain his place throughout the tournament thereafter.
macbeth Posted 17 June 2006 Posted 17 June 2006 If he start on Tuesday, there's a good chance he'll retain his place throughout the tournament thereafter. just one more game then joking honest
Ric Flair Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 What makes me laugh and always has is the fact that there is never any praise for a team who wins even when they play badly. What should Beckham have done in both games? After about an hour when it was obvious we were going to have to grind out a result as we weren't playing well, should he have thought '**** this, come on lads in we go. We aren't playing well so let's not bother'?? It takes the piss. If a team can still win when they've played poorly then that's the sign of a team with massive determination, desire and all the ingredients of a good team. Any team can win when they play well, some teams can lose when they play well aswell (remember us under Levein). Ok, so the last 2 games have been pretty embarassing and against stronger opposition had we played like that we'd have been lucky to get 2 wins but come on it's in our hands now. I am more fearful of a team that often wins regardless of how they play than a team that only wins when they are on top form. Because how do you prepare for a game against the opposition when you know they can win even when they are playing dreadful, we have a mentality in our team that few others have. What let us down in the past was belief but that seems to have changed and if Sven can make positive decisions then we are a dangerous team, one of perhaps 4 teams that seriously can win it. Can we win a tournament without playing well at all?? I'd hope that won't be the case, but we can't win a tournament if we roll over and give up when things aren't going our way. I'm not making any predicitions about what we'll do in the next match, etc but I also won't start moaning should we win again without every player doing triple nutmegs and back-flips with pike every time they get the ball.
Strokes Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 What makes me laugh and always has is the fact that there is never any praise for a team who wins even when they play badly. What should Beckham have done in both games? After about an hour when it was obvious we were going to have to grind out a result as we weren't playing well, should he have thought '**** this, come on lads in we go. We aren't playing well so let's not bother'?? It takes the piss. If a team can still win when they've played poorly then that's the sign of a team with massive determination, desire and all the ingredients of a good team. Any team can win when they play well, some teams can lose when they play well aswell (remember us under Levein). Ok, so the last 2 games have been pretty embarassing and against stronger opposition had we played like that we'd have been lucky to get 2 wins but come on it's in our hands now. I am more fearful of a team that often wins regardless of how they play than a team that only wins when they are on top form. Because how do you prepare for a game against the opposition when you know they can win even when they are playing dreadful, we have a mentality in our team that few others have. What let us down in the past was belief but that seems to have changed and if Sven can make positive decisions then we are a dangerous team, one of perhaps 4 teams that seriously can win it. Can we win a tournament without playing well at all?? I'd hope that won't be the case, but we can't win a tournament if we roll over and give up when things aren't going our way. I'm not making any predicitions about what we'll do in the next match, etc but I also won't start moaning should we win again without every player doing triple nutmegs and back-flips with pike every time they get the ball. I'm not so sure we have been playing as badly as everyone has been making out, sure we never set the world alight against T&T, but they played really well, they sat back and put 10 men behind the ball and tried to stop us playing. Once we got the goal they had to come at us and then we scored another, if we had scored a bit earlier we may have got the score that most people were predicting.
Nationwider Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 After a weekend's hard drinking and calm reflection, I don't think we're in as big a mess as people make out. Playing a fit, well-organised, motivated team playing 5-5-0 is difficult at any level. So it proved against T&T. If he continues to play SG and FL together, there's nothing wrong with that - its just not the most effective use of our resources at the moment. What irks me is that Sven has had two years to mull this over and hasn't managed to come up with a viable alternative plan. Our problem is that, since Paul Ince, we've not had a good holding midfielder - not necessary a tough-tackling psychopath, but just a player who is comfortable kerbing their marauding instincts at times and has a bit of vision and discipline to compliment the skills of Gerrard or Lampard. Against a team like Brazil or Argentina who will have players buzzing around "in the hole" between midfield and the centre-backs, we could be hurt. An Ince-type player would give us that extra bit of protection. It's not as if we don't have the fire-power (when fit) to manage without Lampard. Rooney, Owen, Beckham's free kicks, Gerrard, Joe Cole - there's plenty of goal scorers there. Given Sven's "Til death do us part" attitude with Becks, and Becks' advancing years, he might have used him more in this position - or Carrick, after his successful introduction (if memory serves) on the US tour. One other thought - albeit a negative one. The chances are that if England are going to win the World Cup, one or two game are going to go to extra time and/or penalties. Having Lampard available to come off the bench for the last (say) 60 of 120 minutes, would give us a tremendous boost in what are proving to be very warm conditions. Also, it would guarantee that Lampard would be available to take a penalty (along with Gerrard, Rooney, Terry and Beckham), which might not be the case if he started the match.
Ric Flair Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 After a weekend's hard drinking and calm reflection, I don't think we're in as big a mess as people make out. Playing a fit, well-organised, motivated team playing 5-5-0 is difficult at any level. So it proved against T&T. If he continues to play SG and FL together, there's nothing wrong with that - its just not the most effective use of our resources at the moment. What irks me is that Sven has had two years to mull this over and hasn't managed to come up with a viable alternative plan. Our problem is that, since Paul Ince, we've not had a good holding midfielder - not necessary a tough-tackling psychopath, but just a player who is comfortable kerbing their marauding instincts at times and has a bit of vision and discipline to compliment the skills of Gerrard or Lampard. Against a team like Brazil or Argentina who will have players buzzing around "in the hole" between midfield and the centre-backs, we could be hurt. An Ince-type player would give us that extra bit of protection. It's not as if we don't have the fire-power (when fit) to manage without Lampard. Rooney, Owen, Beckham's free kicks, Gerrard, Joe Cole - there's plenty of goal scorers there. Given Sven's "Til death do us part" attitude with Becks, and Becks' advancing years, he might have used him more in this position - or Carrick, after his successful introduction (if memory serves) on the US tour. One other thought - albeit a negative one. The chances are that if England are going to win the World Cup, one or two game are going to go to extra time and/or penalties. Having Lampard available to come off the bench for the last (say) 60 of 120 minutes, would give us a tremendous boost in what are proving to be very warm conditions. Also, it would guarantee that Lampard would be available to take a penalty (along with Gerrard, Rooney, Terry and Beckham), which might not be the case if he started the match. I still don't think Lampard should be dropped. Granted he missed some sitters against T&T, but you only have to look at the scoring positions he got in to in the 2 games to know that once he does get his eye in, then there's goals to come from him. It's hard to have both Lamps and Gerrard in the centre without playing just one upfront, but I don't want that either. Is Joe Cole's position under threat? Perhaps if Gerrard was moved out left and Carrick came in to sit in behind both Lamps and Gerrard leaving us narrow down the left with Ashley Cole supporting Gerrard on attacks down the left? I like Joe Cole, he's been superb for us recently but Gerrard and Lampard scored 40+ goals between them last season from midfield and we could do with both being allowed to play their natural role.
Nationwider Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 I still don't think Lampard should be dropped. Granted he missed some sitters against T&T, but you only have to look at the scoring positions he got in to in the 2 games to know that once he does get his eye in, then there's goals to come from him. It's hard to have both Lamps and Gerrard in the centre without playing just one upfront, but I don't want that either. Is Joe Cole's position under threat? Perhaps if Gerrard was moved out left and Carrick came in to sit in behind both Lamps and Gerrard leaving us narrow down the left with Ashley Cole supporting Gerrard on attacks down the left? I like Joe Cole, he's been superb for us recently but Gerrard and Lampard scored 40+ goals between them last season from midfield and we could do with both being allowed to play their natural role. As problems go, its not a bad one to have, to be honest. El Tel suggested in one of the papers that England do without Owen AND Crouch and play Rooney up front. Christmas Tree, anyone? --------- Rooney ----------- --- Gerrard -- Lampard --- J.Cole - Carrick - Beckham Of course, what we do then is just play long diagonal balls up to Rooney.
Ultra Posted 19 June 2006 Posted 19 June 2006 Also, it would guarantee that Lampard would be available to take a penalty (along with Gerrard, Rooney, Terry and Beckham), which might not be the case if he started the match. What about Owen? He's had more success in shootouts than anyone else in the squad.
Daggers Posted 20 June 2006 Author Posted 20 June 2006 Vunerability and rejection run to the core of this; just as someone come out with a 'didn't like them anyway' after a break-up this is symptomatic of a mental preparation for a let down. It appears that no one is confident enough to accept potential failure by England so they predict it to happen, thus enabling them to say 'yea, I told you it was crap and we'd fail'. 1. On paper we still have an outstanding team 2. We are top of the group 3. We have qualified for the next round 4. We did the business against negative opposition tactics 5. No goals conceeded 6. Rooney is back 7. We can only get better and better... ...stop looking for a broken toilet in Heaven!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.