Euro 2016 Qualifying

[Donut]

Well according to the 2014 FIFA World Cup game

 

4.5* - Portugal

3.5* - Wales

3* - Albania

0.5* - Andorra

 

Fifa settles the debate. Wow.

[Finnegan]

Wales charged after the pitch invasion and could have part of the ground closed v Bosnia.

Nothing like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Convenient excuse when we only sell four thousand tickets.

[fuchsntf]

By the fact they score around 10 points in each qualifying group which is hardly dreadful is it. They are capable of giving teams a game and taking points off them here and there, they are competitive, thats what was said earlier in the thread. And its true

They must have something about them, they idolise our dearly departed Norman Wisdom..

[Guest Bilo]

Wales charged after the pitch invasion and could have part of the ground closed v Bosnia.

Nothing like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

They'll probably be grateful when it saves on stewarding costs.

[MC Prussian]

You had 2 clear cut chances all night. We had 6 at least.

Even when you had the ball England were dictating how the game was played. At our worst (according to some) in a long time we dealt your team easily enough and we're well and truly deserved winners.

How you can say anything else is either rose tinted spectacles or pathetic trolling.

You might have a new manager but you're no way going through as much of a transition period as us at the minute. You had a better World Cup and should be thriving on that. Unfortunately for you you looked piss poor.

I've been banging on about our lack of a decent strikeforce for months, if not longer. Whereas you have Rooney, Welbeck and Sterling (the latter two clearly on the rise; plus Welbeck and Rooney sharing the Manchester United days), we've been missing a goal poacher ever since Alex Frei left. Drmic, Seferovic and Mehmedi are all too unreliable and Shaqiri goes through his moods a lot - he can be brilliant one day and then play the sulky card the other day.

 

Also, our front three haven't been regular starters in their clubs as opposed to the English counterparts. Our strength stems from our power and will as a unit.

As for transition periods, you've got Hodgson working with mostly the same players (sauf the odd older dropout here and there) for about two years now and I expect your lot to hit the peak just in time when France 2016 is calling. I've also called for patience with that project several times on here - you can go back to my World Cup 2014 contributions for proof. It's all there. I know England will do even better in the next two to four years to come.

 

Compare that to our manager who has been able to work with this squad for the first time the week before the clash with England. With a new system and a new formation (Hitzfeld had taught these guys a 4-2-3-1 for years; of course, it takes time to adapt to a 4-3-3), we clearly lack the automatisms the England squad already has for most part.

 

It was a hit and miss show on Monday up until the 60th minute and both teams played equally bad, cancelling each other out in the process. All in all, it was a dour game from both sides. Thus my conclusion that England weren't better, simply more crucial and clever in front of goal. Given the lengthy preparation under Hodgson and a much more ready front line, hardly a surprise. And as for the amount of chances, it was also an evens game.

 

I might have rose-tinted specs in your eyes, but I could say the same about you. I guess it's only logical coming from an English on a messageboard populated by Brits mainly.

[Grandad.]

Convenient excuse when we only sell four thousand tickets.

 

When was the last time you played at the Millennium mate?

 

It was a hit and miss show on Monday up until the 60th minute and both teams played equally bad, cancelling each other out in the process. All in all, it was a dour game from both sides. Thus my conclusion that England weren't better, simply more crucial and clever in front of goal. Given the lengthy preparation under Hodgson and a much more ready front line, hardly a surprise. And as for the amount of chances, it was also an evens game.

 

I might have rose-tinted specs in your eyes, but I could say the same about you. I guess it's only logical coming from an English on a messageboard populated by Brits mainly.

 

How was it even on chances?

 

I can remember Joe Hart making two good saves and the Gary Cahill block, you seem to forget we obviously scored two goals, the save from Phil Jones header, the fluffed Danny Welbeck pass to Sterling and Sterling's fresh air shot, both of them last two chances were from around 6-8 yards out. It wasn't even at all. England dictated the game from the first whistle to the last whistle. You're embarrassing yourself now. 

 

England went to your back yard, our toughest game on paper in the group and we're in pretty woeful form (won 1 game in the last 6) and Switzerland completely rolled over. Nothing rose-tinted, you just need to open your eyes. 

[Samilktray]

No finer example of why the world rankings are a joke than Switzerland.

[Manwell Pablo]

When was the last time you played at the Millennium mate?

 

 

How was it even on chances?

 

I can remember Joe Hart making two good saves and the Gary Cahill block, you seem to forget we obviously scored two goals, the save from Phil Jones header, the fluffed Danny Welbeck pass to Sterling and Sterling's fresh air shot, both of them last two chances were from around 6-8 yards out. It wasn't even at all. England dictated the game from the first whistle to the last whistle. You're embarrassing yourself now. 

 

England went to your back yard, our toughest game on paper in the group and we're in pretty woeful form (won 1 game in the last 6) and Switzerland completely rolled over. Nothing rose-tinted, you just need to open your eyes. 

 

Whilst I agree we clearly had more chances than them how can you claim to "dictate" a game from 0-90 when you only have 44% possession 

 

We had a much better first half but still presented them with the best chance of the half through giving the ball away in a silly area, they had a really good 10 minute spell in the second half and it was beginning to look a bit peaky, unfortuantley for them it ended in them giving the ball away in a stupid area and we hit them with a text book counter attack. 

[Grandad.]

Whilst I agree we clearly had more chances than them how can you claim to "dictate" a game from 0-90 when you only have 44% possession 

 

We had a much better first half but still presented them with the best chance of the half through giving the ball away in a silly area, they had a really good 10 minute spell in the second half and it was beginning to look a bit peaky, unfortuantley for them it ended in them giving the ball away in a stupid area and we hit them with a text book counter attack. 

 

You don't need to be in possession of a football to dictate a game mate, look at Liverpool's loss to Chelsea at home last season, Liverpool had the ball for such long periods but there was only one team who was in control and dictated the game, Chelsea. 

[Manwell Pablo]

You don't need to be in possession of a football to dictate a game mate, look at Liverpool's loss to Chelsea at home last season, Liverpool had the ball for such long periods but there was only one team who was in control and dictated the game, Chelsea. 

 

Well that's slightly different that Chelsea containing and shutting out a game, dictate is certainly not a word I'd use for it. To dictate a game you need the football. Not that we did that anyway if they were clinical it'd of ended 3-2.

[Grandad.]

Well that's slightly different that Chelsea containing and shutting out a game, dictate is certainly not a word I'd use for it. To dictate a game you need the football. Not that we did that anyway if they were clinical it'd of ended 3-2.

 

And if we were clinical then it could of been 5-3..

 

It's not different, Chelsea dictated that game, they let Liverpool have as much of the ball as Chelsea were willing to let them have, that is Chelsea dictating. 

[MC Prussian]

How was it even on chances?

 

I can remember Joe Hart making two good saves and the Gary Cahill block, you seem to forget we obviously scored two goals, the save from Phil Jones header, the fluffed Danny Welbeck pass to Sterling and Sterling's fresh air shot, both of them last two chances were from around 6-8 yards out. It wasn't even at all. England dictated the game from the first whistle to the last whistle. You're embarrassing yourself now. 

 

England went to your back yard, our toughest game on paper in the group and we're in pretty woeful form (won 1 game in the last 6) and Switzerland completely rolled over. Nothing rose-tinted, you just need to open your eyes. 

As far as the chances are concerned, I counted more than a handful on either side, with Switzerland coming to life again following the first goal in particular.

England "dictating" the game my ****. If it hadn't been for two sloppy mistakes by our lot, it would've ended in a classic dour 0-0 draw, as acknowledged by others on here.

But maybe you want to go a bit more into detail in order to explain to us all how you come to your conclusion.

One win out of the last six games (well, it's two out of seven now) may look "woeful" from an English perspective, but your 2014 record stands at W4 D3 L2 now. Shame the two losses were at the World Cup, but you were up against more efficient opposition back then.

You've still only lost five times since Hodgson took over - that's quite impressive.

 

I don't need to "embarrass" myself nor do I have the history of doing so on here, you've already saved me from that a few times with your previous FT antics which are well-documented, mate.

 

Rule Britannia and all - have a great day, my dear patriot, and finally enjoy a win without throwing your clotted English-ridden toys out of the pram so easily.

[Manwell Pablo]

And if we were clinical then it could of been 5-3..

 

It's not different, Chelsea dictated that game, they let Liverpool have as much of the ball as Chelsea were willing to let them have, that is Chelsea dictating. 

 

You say that I don't remember Sommer making a save besides Phil Jones's header, and Phil Jones couldn't of done anymore with that, you can't count Wellbecks fluffed ball as no chance was actually created.

 

How is letting the other team have the ball dictating a game, it's shutting a game out two completely different things. Liverpool are still in charge of what areas and how quickly the game is played Chelsea are just nullifying them

 

It's a stupid debate anyway and besides the point we weren't trying to play like Chelsea on Monday night and giving the Swiss the ball was not something we were doing voluntarily.

 

Again don't get me wrong we deserved to win, I think to say it was an easy stroll in the park is an exaggeration.

[Grandad.]

You say that I don't remember Sommer making a save besides Phil Jones's header, and Phil Jones couldn't of done anymore with that, you can't count Wellbecks fluffed ball as no chance was actually created.

Well it was a chance, if Welbeck finds Sterling then we score. And when I think it was Henderson pulling the ball back to Sterling in the second half when he fluffed the ball, that is a chance as well. 

 

--

 

Stop bringing up the past Prussian to try and turn this around, you have made yourself look a right numpty in this thread, Switzerland are tragically bad, England are going through a torrid year, 6 wins in 14 games, the wins coming against Montenegro, Poland, Denmark, Peru, Norway and your crap. Nothing to be pleased about, so when you're a side ranked 9th in the world coming off a much better World Cup than the team who beat you Monday night 2-0 in your home stadium, then it is pretty bad. 

Wait, you didn't play a friendly before the England game did you?  

[Vicki Vixen]

No finer example of why the world rankings are a joke than Switzerland.

 

The rankings are based on performance.  What better measure of a team's ability than results?  

 

Out of interest, how would you suggesting the rankings are determined?  (Try answering that question without sounding like the echo a Forest fan whining about how they deserve to be treated as a big club on the basis that they won a major trophy 35 years ago.)

 

For the record, here are Switzerland's recent results which explains their world ranking:

 

Switzerland 1 - 0 Cyprus

Switzerland 1 - 0 Brazil

Switzerland 4 - 4 Iceland

Norway 0 - 2 Switzerland

Albania 1 - 2 Switzerland

Switzerland 1 - 0 Slovenia

Korea Republic 2 - 1 Switzerland

Switzerland 2 - 2 Croatia

Switzerland 1 - 0 Jamaica

Switzerland 2 - 0 Peru

Switzerland 2 - 1 Ecuador

Switzerland 2 - 5 France

Honduras 0 - 3 Switzerland 

Argentina E 1 - 0 Switzerland 

[Finnegan]

Look at the teams they've beaten.

World rankings should be based off results, yes, but they should be scaled in value by the rankings of the teams you beat. The IRB do it much better.

[Grandad.]

Granted they have beaten Brazil in there but Ecuador are probably the next best team they have beaten on that list.

 

It's ridiculous. 

[Vicki Vixen]

Look at the teams they've beaten.

World rankings should be based off results, yes, but they should be scaled in value by the rankings of the teams you beat. The IRB do it much better.

 

From the FIFA website: 

 

Calculation of points for a single match

The number of points that can be won in a match depends on the following factors:

•      Was the match won or drawn? (M)

•      How important was the match (ranging from a friendly match to a FIFA World Cup™ match)? (I)

•      How strong was the opposing team in terms of ranking position and the confederation to which they belong? (T and C)

These factors are brought together in the following formula to ascertain the total number of points (P).

P = M x I x T x C

[ScouseFox]

Granted they have beaten Brazil in there but Ecuador are probably the next best team they have beaten on that list.

 

It's ridiculous. 

 

and that victory over brazil came just a few months after we'd beaten brazil at home and drawn with them away 

[Grandad.]

and that victory over brazil came just a few months after we'd beaten brazil at home and drawn with them away 

 

When I think of Brazil now I can't help but think of what Germany did to them so that automatically makes Brazil a bag of piss anyway..

[Danno]

I just cant take Vicki Vixen seriously with George Taft as their picture

[Vicki Vixen]

I just cant take Vicki Vixen seriously with George Taft as their picture

 

Changed it for you pal

[Dan]

We didn't 'dictate' the game at all. We did quite the opposite in my opinion but it was just proof that you don't have to dictate a game to win it. We deserved the win for me simply because of how dangerous we looked on the break. We've got a serious weapon about us there and if we can build on that then maybe, just maybe we might actually shake the nondescript nature of our national team.

[Corky]

We didn't 'dictate' the game at all. We did quite the opposite in my opinion but it was just proof that you don't have to dictate a game to win it. We deserved the win for me simply because of how dangerous we looked on the break. We've got a serious weapon about us there and if we can build on that then maybe, just maybe we might actually shake the nondescript nature of our national team.

 

It reminded me of Watford away last season, England didn't dominate and Switzerland had chances, same as Watford but the winners always looked the more clinical going forward.

[Grandad.]

We didn't 'dictate' the game at all. We did quite the opposite in my opinion but it was just proof that you don't have to dictate a game to win it. We deserved the win for me simply because of how dangerous we looked on the break. We've got a serious weapon about us there and if we can build on that then maybe, just maybe we might actually shake the nondescript nature of our national team.

 

I'm pretty sure you just wait for everyone to finish speaking then just pop up and agree with the most people in an argument. 

 

We let them have the ball and we never allowed them to create anything in our final third, actually no we did, when we made errors. We dictated the midfield, especially second half. Having the ball isn't dictating a game, especially when you are not going anywhere with it. Switzerland had a lot of the ball in their own half and around our midfield, no further, never got in behind us apart from few errors. Even the Gary Cahill block the Swiss player was offside.  

 

I think England controlled and dictated the tempo the game very well on Monday, Hodgson for once got it spot on.