Russia 2018 Chat

[liquidfootball2]

Yes although the midfield playmaker is desperately needed to orchestrate the parts and bring together the defence and attack, to complete the system he's trying to play.

Not having one was beyond his control and it meant we reverted to type in the second half against Croatia, we lost our way without possession, we lost our grip and were forced back. 

It is the crucial link that can make us truly competitive and operating without one is a tough ask whoever the coach is and whatever tactics employed.

Coaching can help teams not fall back into bad habits but to finish the jigsaw that piece is needed, an unconnected partially complete plan is the best he could hope for, with luck providing the rest.

The defence and attack weren't as joined as they should be and it was the latter starved of possession in the second half that found the limits to it's effectiveness.

Without such a lynchpin England needed to lose to Belgium, and it was essentially this loss which gave them the opportunity to surprise us all and advance beyond any reasonable pre tournament expectations, even with all their deficiencies and faults that loss and the way the draw unfolded gave them that opportunity.

The team isn't ready, unfortunately this golden chance came too early in their development, that Modric or Pirlo doesn't exist yet, but the formula is there and the plan to make us really competitive is in place. 

Southgate and his team excelled and went almost further than most thought possible, they used their luck and it was a real step forward.

[jimmy ching]

The young French full back who resembles Christian Dailly has looked a decent player as well.

Pavard, yeah can't believe he plays for Stuttgart, should be at a top-top club, I'd be very pleased to see him at United.

I'll give it to Pavard. He nicked Sidibe's place and has won it through his performances. A pleasant surprise.

[Zimmerman]

I’ve been impressed by Pavard. I’ll be disappointed if United manage to snap him up (hopefully Pogba talks him out of it).

But Modric for my player of the tournament so far.

[hancockjr]

I’ve been impressed by Pavard. I’ll be disappointed if United manage to snap him up (hopefully Pogba talks him out of it).

But Modric for my player of the tournament so far.

He’s not even a right back usually - normally a centre back.

[liquidfootball2]

I think it was most likely agreed with the sponsors pre-tournament who would win and possibly Messi or Ronaldo are in with a good chance.

Messi had a largely ineffectual and disappointing tournament four years ago but Muller and other German stars were still overlooked in what was generally thought of as a ludicrous and laughable decision, but one which made financial sense.

Perhaps the corruption and fixing can't be quite so blatant this time with them both going out in the last sixteen and Blatter or heir apparent Platini no longer here, but they should decide after the final if it's awarded on merit

[jimmy ching]

The young French full back who resembles Christian Dailly has looked a decent player as well.

Pavard, yeah can't believe he plays for Stuttgart, should be at a top-top club, I'd be very pleased to see him at United.

I'll give it to Pavard. He nicked Sidibe's place and has won it through his performances. A pleasant surprise.

Mind you, don't listen to me. I said before the semi final, Umtiti was their weak point.

[forestfan]

I think it was most likely agreed with the sponsors pre-tournament who would win and possibly Messi or Ronaldo are in with a good chance.

Messi had a largely ineffectual and disappointing tournament four years ago but Muller and other German stars were still overlooked in what was generally thought of as a ludicrous and laughable decision, but one which made financial sense.

He did carry them through the earlier stages, so it was probably decided by the time they made the last eight, but then he didn’t make much impact from then on.

There’s rarely an outstanding player over so few games, so maybe they should keep the awards to the factual i.e. top scorer?

[liquidfootball2]

I think it was most likely agreed with the sponsors pre-tournament who would win it and possibly Messi or Ronaldo are in with a good chance.

Messi had a largely ineffectual and disappointing tournament four years ago but Muller and other German stars were still overlooked in what was generally thought of as a ludicrous and laughable decision, but one which made financial sense.

He did carry them through the earlier stages, so it was probably decided by the time they made the last eight, but then he didn’t make much impact from then on.

There’s rarely an outstanding player over so few games, so maybe they should keep the awards to the factual i.e. top scorer?

There's no way of knowing but from all the other shenanigans we do know of, makes arranging with the sponsors who has won the golden ball before the tournament has even begun really very trivial indeed, and i suspect may well have been the case perhaps or perhaps not with a minimum requirement of getting out of the group stage in place.

These guys fix world cup draws, accept multi millions in backhanders and give the World Cup to Qatar!

[Zimmerman]

I’ve been impressed by Pavard. I’ll be disappointed if United manage to snap him up (hopefully Pogba talks him out of it).

But Modric for my player of the tournament so far.

He’s not even a right back usually - normally a centre back.

Young CBs often make good FBs until they mature.

Carragher, Neville, Puyol, Ramos off the top of my head. Could even throw Azpilicueta in? Didn’t he join Chelsea as young FB?

[Zimmerman]

When the emotion ebbs away, are stats like this a more sobering (and realistic) view on where we are in our evolution?

[Maldini]

We've played 6 games with two going to extra time (600 minutes) and have scored 12 goals.

So how have they worked that out?

[hancockjr]

When the emotion ebbs away, are stats like this a more sobering (and realistic) view on where we are in our evolution?

How do they reckon we’ve got less than a shot on target per game when we’ve scored 12(?) goals in 6 games ?

[Zimmerman]

I’m guessing set pieces don’t count towards the stats?
Or they’ve purposely omited set plays?

Weren’t only 2/12 goals the result of open play?

[hancockjr]

I’m guessing set pieces don’t count towards the stats?
Or they’ve purposely omited set plays?

Weren’t only 2/12 goals the result of open play?

Yes - from TalkSport:

The stats make for grim reading: England had an average of 0.9 shots on target from open play per 90 minutes. Only Iran had fewer.

Here’s a game-by-game breakdown: Croatia: 0; Sweden: 1; Colombia 0; Beglium 1; Panama 2; Tunisia 2.

Kind of important to note that in the chart title though!

[Maldini]

Good to know that all those wonderful Brazilian free kicks over the years aren't classed as shots on target and deemed unimportant.

The table just seems like a pathetic way to try and undermine the performance of the team (aimed at the newspaper not you Zim)

[Zimmerman]

But i think it’s useful in highlighting how little creativity we actually had... obviously you could argue that freekicks, penalties and corners come as the result of being on offensive positions and are no less valuable when scored.

But a team that manages 1 shot a game (or six in total) is hardly playing scintillating football.

[liquidfootball2]

When the emotion ebbs away, are stats like this a more sobering (and realistic) view on where we are in our evolution?

England somehow managed to beat their all time goals record with hardly any shots on target, these stats have far less relevance when you realise what aren't included

For a start they're not like for like and hugely distorted by the number of games each team played, usually the later the round the better the opposition the less shots.

Croatia aren't Panama.

Stats can be used quite wrongly and unrealistically to prove any point or fit any agenda and give an massively distorted view.

The fact that we were possibly over dependant on set pieces has been mentioned ad finitum and the probable causes too, this adds very little imo.

[blahblah]

Lies, damned lies and statistics......

Despite the furore England still beat who they should then lost to the first (vaguely) decent side they faced.

Obviously the Belgium (group) match doesn't and vaguely as Craotia needed Pens to beat Denmark and Russia.


That said: they played like a proper International side for the first time since 1974(ish); any egos seem to be controlled\contained, which is more than good given the history; and Southgate dumped the likes of Rooney and Hart . Hopefully this will continue through the Qualifying to bring in more kids in proper matches as preparation for the Euro's.

[forestfan]

There’s lots of different ways to win football matches, and all (other than blatant cheating) are equally valid. We can’t just flick a switch and become Spain or Brazil in terms of style of play. It’s about making the most of your strengths, minimising your weaknesses and having a clear plan of how you are going to play, and I think we’re on track with all these things at the moment.

We could do with a creative or calming influence in the middle of the pitch, and that player might emerge at some stage, and they are clearly working on bringing through players with more technical quality. But England sides will continue to focus on the strengths of the Premier League game and the players we have available.

[liquidfootball2]

Can't be bothered with this really, but although not as many as eight, changing half the side shows just how much it means or rather it doesn't mean.

Belgium playing pretty much a full strength team possibly treating it as a more meaningful game but win this and Belgium are still losing semi-finalists

[Zimmerman]

When the emotion ebbs away, are stats like this a more sobering (and realistic) view on where we are in our evolution?

England somehow managed to beat their all time goals record with hardly any shots on target, these stats have far less relevance when you realise what aren't included

For a start they're not like for like and hugely distorted by the number of games each team played, usually the later the round the better the opposition the less shots.

Croatia aren't Panama.

Stats can be used quite wrongly and unrealistically to prove any point or fit any agenda and give an massively distorted view.

The fact that we were possibly over dependant on set pieces has been mentioned ad finitum and the probable causes too, this adds very little imo.

Your arguing your own point surely?
We played Panama and yet we still averaged less than 1 shot a game.

Tunisia were a shocking team too.

Spain and Germany made early exits, had groups much tougher than ours yet still enjoyed better stats?

Surely there’s no better comparison than Belgium?
Gone the distance. Same group as us.
Went in to the tougher half of the group. Nearly 5 times as many shots.

Croatia and France. Gone the distance. Better stats.

Taking our group games in isolation; 5 in 3 (still only 1.67) in possibly the easy group in the comp.

[Zimmerman]

There’s lots of different ways to win football matches, and all (other than blatant cheating) are equally valid. We can’t just flick a switch and become Spain or Brazil in terms of style of play. It’s about making the most of your strengths, minimising your weaknesses and having a clear plan of how you are going to play, and I think we’re on track with all these things at the moment.

We could do with a creative or calming influence in the middle of the pitch, and that player might emerge at some stage, and they are clearly working on bringing through players with more technical quality. But England sides will continue to focus on the strengths of the Premier League game and the players we have available.

No we can’t, but it’s also a reminder to be realistically about who/what we are.

The tidal wave of “this is the start of something special” or “we’re amazing” is simply misguided or even deluded.

Do we think Iceland were all lauding themselves as being on the cusp of something special or did they just enjoy scrapping their way to some upsets?

Or Jack Charltons side of yesteryear?

[liquidfootball2]

When the emotion ebbs away, are stats like this a more sobering (and realistic) view on where we are in our evolution?

England somehow managed to beat their all time goals record with hardly any shots on target, these stats have far less relevance when you realise what aren't included

For a start they're not like for like and hugely distorted by the number of games each team played, usually the later the round the better the opposition the less shots.

Croatia aren't Panama.

Stats can be used quite wrongly and unrealistically to prove any point or fit any agenda and give an massively distorted view.

The fact that we were possibly over dependant on set pieces has been mentioned ad finitum and the probable causes too, this adds very little imo.

Your arguing your own point surely?
We played Panama and yet we still averaged less than 1 shot a game.

Tunisia were a shocking team too.

Spain and Germany made early exits, had groups much tougher than ours yet still enjoyed better stats?

Surely there’s no better comparison than Belgium?
Gone the distance. Same group as us.
Went in to the tougher half of the group. Nearly 5 times as many shots.

Croatia and France. Gone the distance. Better stats.

No I'm not but little point taking it further

Just one point you're stating the obvious about Belgium, Germany and Spain being better from open play but its just going round in circles

These sides are rated (elo) higher than us and our deficiencies known about

[Zimmerman]

On another note, surprisingly strong lineups.

Belgium 1 change and England 5?

Really surprised Trippier has made it. He looked broken on Wednesday night.

[liquidfootball2]

England have made 5 out of a possible 10 outfield changes, that's substantially changed in my book, you disrupt everything pretty much

[forestfan]

Often one team is up for this and the other isn’t, England seem to be the latter.

Harsh on the backup keepers not to get a run-out here.

[liquidfootball2]

No we can’t, but it’s also a reminder to be realistically about who/what we are.

The tidal wave of “this is the start of something special” or “we’re amazing” is simply misguided or even deluded.

Do we think Iceland were all lauding themselves as being on the cusp of something special or did they just enjoy scrapping their way to some upsets?

Or Jack Charltons side of yesteryear?

Really?

Hardly anyone on here has said we're a great side, but the planning is there and we have made use of the weaker draw, losing that group game was very important as pointed out on here.

To compare us to Iceland or ROI isn't really that valid at all, we've changed systems and style, our successful age group teams have been increased in number to four, a plan is in place for more than this competition when the vital personnel just aren't there


We weren't anything like ready and had all too obvious faults, missing crucial players in crucial positions normally so vital for tournament success.

It's difficult to deny, as hard as i might try and with as many qualifications as I might use, that to reach such an advanced stage without such attributes, despite being 'not ready' and so lacking in such crucial areas, is a very notable triumph.

You can deny it but imo it's true.

[blahblah]

Jones

[Tacalabala]

Gareth needs to have a word with Phil, bloody useless.

[blahblah]

Like "thanks for your efforts for England, bye"?

But this is the point re the above: he would have been a nailed on starter in past regimes?