Euro 2016 thread

Fretwired

menamestom said:

Fretwired said:

lloyd said:

menamestom said:

I don't think there was any danger of Slovakia scoring. I'd like to see Rashford also, he's an unknown quantity to many and could freshen things up slightly.

Stallings header back to Hart was a big chance for them, if he connects properly that's a goal and you're out.....

Would probably still got through on 4 points and faced Germany.

Roy's picked lots of Spurs and Leicester players so he should look at how their teams play which is fast counter attacking football. Leicester play good old 4-4-2 which is becoming popular again in Europe. But Roy decides England should play like a continental side ... he should play as if he's managing a Premier League side.

How can you play counter attacking football against a team that don't attack? Leicester generally have lowish posession so have space to run into, England were playing a team camped out in their own penalty area. You can't counter attack that. You're not going to give the ball away purposfully at that level to encourage a high pace premiership type game. I think things will look better in attack as we play the better teams, although that's probably when our defense will be found out.

There were opportunities - England were to slow on the ball. The was a period in the second half when Slovakia were pressing Joe Hart in his goal and England's midfield. There were holes at the back that could have been exploited had Roy decided to play a quick winger. England also have to have the nous to sit back and let the opposition have the ball (the Italians are masters of this) so you can counter attack. England will find this out when they step up and face a quality side which will soak up English pressure and then hit them on the counter attack.

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

It's actually not that bad for England to end up second in the group. They'll probably have Hungary or Iceland in the next round whereas Wales could conceivably end up with Croatia.

Ending up second in a weak group isn't bad. Not scoring and winning games with so much possession is poor. England never really looked like scoring and only managed two goals in open play and one from a set piece. They will need to improve and quickly.

lloyd

Fretwired said:

lloyd said:

menamestom said:

I don't think there was any danger of Slovakia scoring. I'd like to see Rashford also, he's an unknown quantity to many and could freshen things up slightly.

Stallings header back to Hart was a big chance for them, if he connects properly that's a goal and you're out.....

Would probably still got through on 4 points and faced Germany.

Aye, true.

Snap

so frustrating, again.

i dont think hodgson is that good tbh. he cocked up yesterday.

easy to say but genuinely i alwys had us for 0-0 against slovakia. we always struuggle against teams like this

joeyowen

My head hurts

What a night!

lloyd

Thing is I can see England clicking and putting a big score on somebody, Vardy, Sturridge and Ali on different days would have scored and if one goes in then you might get a load more.

International football is a waiting game-the tournament has been pretty defensive so far, but enjoyable, but that's to be expected-the lesser teams are always going to park the bus and hope for breaks and set-pieces, you play to your strengths, not the other teams.

It's up to England to pick them apart patiently, and to be honest they're creating good chances they're just not getting the rub so far.

In knock-out football you score first and the other team has to come on to you, which will open gaps, with Englands pace up front they could do well.

I wasn't expecting too much from England this tournament, but on the back of what I have seen, I think the way games have gone this year could suit them.

On the positive side you're through, you've dominated every game, created a bagful of chances in every game.

Negatives, you've missed a lot of chances, Roy doesn't know his best team.

Jalapeno

I think Roy's proven he's got strength in depth, but no in-form finisher (possible exception of Vardy, but he never gets an service, and to be fair neither did Kane up front).

Fretwired

Jalapeno said:

I think Roy's proven he's got strength in depth, but no in-form finisher (possible exception of Vardy, but he never gets an service, and to be fair neither did Kane up front).

This is the problem - no quality service. I support Spurs and have watched Kane all season .. he likes sitting on the shoulder of the last defender and looks for a quick ball to turn the defender and shoot. He's not been given a single ball he can turn and shoot ..

@lloyd is right .. phase one has been defensive .. phase two is knock out so teams will have to play so maybe the space will be there for England to exploit. Wales are now the tournaments dark horses .. I've been impressed by Wales.

lloyd

Jalapeno;1119176" said:

I think Roy's proven he's got strength in depth, but no in-form finisher (possible exception of Vardy, but he never gets an service, and to be fair neither did Kane up front).

In a Liverpool fan so maybe biased, but he should be starting Sturridge IMO.

He's the best all round striker you've got.

Vardy's has a great season so should be in the squad but with his pace he'd be a handy sub to bring on.

Sturridge and Kane are used to teams sitting back against them, always being lower teams cup finals when Spurs and Liverpool come to town, Vardy less so I'd imagine and its a different mindset and skill to play that way.

Fretwired

BigLicks67

Disappointed that we bossed three games and didn't win the group. Fair play to Wales though beating Russia 3-0 is a great result and they have a good chance of making it to the Quarter Finals now.

menamestom

lloyd said:

Jalapeno;1119176" said:

I think Roy's proven he's got strength in depth, but no in-form finisher (possible exception of Vardy, but he never gets an service, and to be fair neither did Kane up front).

In a Liverpool fan so maybe biased, but he should be starting Sturridge IMO.

He's the best all round striker you've got.

Vardy's has a great season so should be in the squad but with his pace he'd be a handy sub to bring on.

Sturridge and Kane are used to teams sitting back against them, always being lower teams cup finals when Spurs and Liverpool come to town, Vardy less so I'd imagine and its a different mindset and skill to play that way.

That's why I think Rashford could be useful. Everything he's done at Man U this season has been with us having very high posession and almost no creative outlet, so he's crafted chances from nothing. He plays with absolutely no fear. Perhaps it's too soon for him but if none of the others step up by 70 mins in the next round I'd bring him on.

lloyd

menamestom said:

lloyd said:

Jalapeno;1119176" said:

I think Roy's proven he's got strength in depth, but no in-form finisher (possible exception of Vardy, but he never gets an service, and to be fair neither did Kane up front).

In a Liverpool fan so maybe biased, but he should be starting Sturridge IMO.

He's the best all round striker you've got.

Vardy's has a great season so should be in the squad but with his pace he'd be a handy sub to bring on.

Sturridge and Kane are used to teams sitting back against them, always being lower teams cup finals when Spurs and Liverpool come to town, Vardy less so I'd imagine and its a different mindset and skill to play that way.

That's why I think Rashford could be useful. Everything he's done at Man U this season has been with us having very high posession and almost no creative outlet, so he's crafted chances from nothing. He plays with absolutely no fear. Perhaps it's too soon for him but if none of the others step up by 70 mins in the next round I'd bring him on.

Aye, he's a dangerous player. Creates his own chance from nothing. England have an embarrassment of riches up front-but no truly World Class striker.

From what ex-pro's and managers say, most strikers need to know they're loved by the boss to get the best out of them, perhaps Roy should have gone with one, two or three of his best strikers and told them you're my first team players?

FX_Munkee

The problem England have is that they have 5 good strikers, but they're all fast - get behind the defense - type strikers. In the 3 games we've played there has been no room behind the defense as they've just shut up shop and defended deep. We could have benefited from a virtuoso midfielder to score from outside the box <cough> Bale </cough>.
It's going to be different in the next knock out round, whoever they play will have to attack. We should get far better chances in a more open field.
As for the changes last night, we possibly missed Rooney for some creative play but Clyne was as good as Walker. Not convinced by Bertrand though, especially if he actually has to defend at some point. But in reality the changes made little difference other than proving we do have quite a bit of strength in depth.

Snap

On the upside we are through.

Also, we will have longer to the next game than if we were top.

Further, none of the teams we could be playing look that good. We should be able to beat all of them, but then we should hae beaten all the teams in our group, with some ease.

And more, its been the most attack minded I've seen England for a long time. We were very agressive last night, but we came across a very defensively capable team. I worry that if our defense is properly tested over the length of a game (and not just now and again), we could be on the end of a thumping.

We shall see eh?

LoFi

Snap said:

FIFA rankings mean nothing, they include friendlies. So, at one point Wales were in the top 10.

YOu could go on a series of friendlies against 10 crap teams, win them all and you'd be right up there at tht top of the rankings. Waste of time.

Actually, I'm pretty certain that's not true. I seem to recall reading a piece about our qualification pool for the 2014 World Cup, explaining why we were so far down the rankings (and therefore in the same pool as one of the top seeds) - it was because we'd played a load of friendlies against no-mark countries, and the weird FIFA ranking rules. 

In essence, a high-ranked team could play a friendly against (say) San Marino, thrash them 10-0, and still end up losing ranking points.

Snap

Couldn't quote the exat mechanics of it, but they don't really reflect the ability of a team. I remember looking into it once, and it is a load of bobbins. If you can be arsed, have a look.

But then I suppose any system would have its flaws.

Clarky

Snap said:

On the upside we are through.

Also, we will have longer to the next game than if we were top.

Further, none of the teams we could be playing look that good. We should be able to beat all of them, but then we should hae beaten all the teams in our group, with some ease.

And more, its been the most attack minded I've seen England for a long time. We were very agressive last night, but we came across a very defensively capable team. I worry that if our defense is properly tested over the length of a game (and not just now and again), we could be on the end of a thumping.

We shall see eh?

it looked to me like all of the teams in the group played very defence minded against England and quite differently against each other..

I didn't see the entire Wales v Russia game, only the highlights.. but it looked like Wales had a fair more space in front of the Russian goal than England did.

Fretwired

Snap said:

Couldn't quote the exat mechanics of it, but they don't really reflect the ability of a team. I remember looking into it once, and it is a load of bobbins. If you can be arsed, have a look.

But then I suppose any system would have its flaws.

Has a wis .. you are correct.

The rankings system is designed to reward wins through a series of multipliers, one of which is the strength of the opponent.

While it can take some working out, the premise is fairly simple: the higher ranked the side when you play them, the more a win is worth. It is this which has been one of the biggest drivers of Wales’ rise as they took on a beat sides ranked well above them. It would have been hard to play teams below them at one point .. :-)

lloyd

The rankings aren't an exact science and a few freak results or not playing a few games can affect your standings but, they're a pretty good overall method of who's where in World football.

Brazil, Germany, England, Italy, Argentina etc will never be far outside the top 10 which is right, and timings of International fixtures affect them.

I wouldn't say Belgium were ever 2nd in the World but it reflects a great run of results and lets be fair-a bloody good team of players especially 18-24 Months ago you're looking at an in form Hazard, Kompany and Fellaini, De Brunye as an up and coming player and Courtois in goal, who was up there as one of the best at the time.