Agree. They are having great tournaments so far and with hope, continue that when they return to club business with us next month.Was busy watching Iran vs USA and missed Rashy's goals. Pleased for him.
United players on fire this World Cup!
Going forward, yeah, but probably they edge out Qatar by virtue of their decent defending. One big mistake by their keeper or they probably get 2 draws and concede one goal in their first 2 games.Agree with this - was thinking this watching the game. Wales have to be a very strong contender for worst side in the tournament
That, and my mom is from Preston!Sure yous are
Your adopted team since norway are sitting at home for being shite?
I have. Solid at the back and lacking ideas up top, but with a young lad having a moment.Have you watched Holland this tourney?
Yep, taking Walker, Rice, Kane and then Shaw off with around half hour to go was cos Wales were terrible so it was time to rest key players and the players that stayed on just saw out the game like a training session really. England won`t get an easier game than that again.If England had needed to score six or seven goals tonight they would have done so with relative ease, Wales were diabolical again. As a matter of fact they were comfortably the worst team in this tournament -- bottom half Championship-level stuff from them from start to finish. Even Qatar put up a decent fight against Senegal and even Costa Rica have managed a (jammy) win.
That’s fair assessment. I think CQ set us up too defensive from the start similar to Ecuador in a way. We had more to give. USA over 3 games performances fully deserve their place in the next round.Iran simply lacked quality in the final third, a couple of chances from crosses into the box but nothing sustained. USA deserved the win in the end.
Call me....Nostradamus!I have a feeling Netherlands, Senegal, and USA will win.
Call me....Nostradamus!
Agree. Should never have been issue.Absurd to even ask the question.
Agree with a lot of that, I so want to see Foden in the middle, he was isolated and drifting a lot of the frst half out wide and his slick passign and moving the ball I think will be negated against a biggger side where as in the middle he could really nit things together in a tight area. I just think the form of Rashford, the first performance of Saka, the experience of Sterling, the energy drivign forward Grealish brings.....we should be trying to fit 3 of them into the side.Hopefully Kane ca get his shootign boots on in the knockout stages.I liked this England line up much better. 3 proper midfielders - not Mount as an 8 or 10 or whatever he is. Walker instead of Tripper. And I like Foden, Rashford or Saka for the wide positions. Personally I would take Foden + one of Rashford/Saka because those two are similar types of attackers. The balance is much better.
Should be a comfortable win for England. I'll say 3-1.So we will have these in the round of 16:
Netherlands vs. USA
England vs. Senegal
I disagree. The best Wales had to offer all tournament was a twenty minute spell in the second half against the United States. They never once looked threatening going forward, let alone scoring a goal, in their other games. Costa Rica have been diabolical, too, perhaps even slightly worse; but at least they've won a match and that counts for something.Bollocks. First half was a decent effort. Class was always going to tell in the end.
Would have been great to see Gallagher & Maddison get a little bit of time on the pitch late in the game with no pressure onYep, taking Walker, Rice, Kane and then Shaw off with around half hour to go was cos Wales were terrible so it was time to rest key players and the players that stayed on just saw out the game like a training session really. England won`t get an easier game than that again.
I mean ofcourse a 48 team world cup will mean a less competitive world cup. FIFA are not doing this because they want a more competitive world cup, its all revenue related. The more teams at the WC means a further global reach in terms of fan audience and more fans coming into the country to support their country.Not really, no. The worst European sides at this tournament are probably Poland and Wales and they're alright. Add 3 more for the new 48 team World Cup but let's make it 5 assuming Poland won't replace Lewandowski and Zielinski will be around but old (and their young talent is just okay) and say Wales (lacking a presence in attack, it's all skinny fast guys) drop out you're talking what, Italy and maybe 4 of Sweden, Scotland, Ukraine, Austria, Norway, Turkey and Romania, with the Turks especially having a ton of young talent in their spine, Norway looking potentially strong by 2026 and Romania doing well at youth tournaments and Austria better under Rangnick playing Red Bull/Bundesliga style ball that should make them tough to play against.
So yeah, the worst European side at this world cup at the moment looks like Wales and they were at 1-1 and 0-0 their first 2 games until the 85th minute and hell they may even beat England who knows. Serbia is a mess but a beautiful one.
Canada hosts the next one so we're in, but as a Canada fan, if we can't finish top 4 in Concacaf, we shouldn't be in. You can see that Costa Rica are getting everything they can out of their team. Jamaica can replace them now that they've added a bunch of good English players and while they're mostly too old for 2026, they should be real useful for qualifying and some of the older defensive types like Pinnock and DeCordova-Reid are good pros and Bailey and Hutchison can probably recruit more solid players who would make the England C or D teams like Demarai Gray, Rico Henry, Aarons or Ferguson at RB and Hayden and maybe even Gibbs-White (who would be massive, he's a quality #10). Let's say a 5th side can be passable and only blown out once, either Costa Rica or maybe more likely the young Panama side, but a 6th side is asking way too much of Concacaf and should be replaced by a European side.
I'm convinced Southgate knew exactly what he was doing against the USA. They're very young and almost certainly the fittest and most athletic side in the tournament, any one off tournament game against them was going to be tough. After drubbing Iran he knew the GD meant a point against the USA would be eough to effectively see us through, and he got it.After the end of the first 2 groups, what we've learned:
-Qatar was this WC's control group. It looked like a random selection of eleven guys making us appreciate how much better professionals are.
-Senegal wasn't Mane plus ten. Interesting team that could grow into the competition.
-LVG puts the rivals to sleep, then Gakpo finishes.
-Wales retired from the competition after achieving its main goal, which was Bale scoring.
-Iran is only allowed to score in injury time.
-The US team gets younger every game. If they get to the final, the match shall be played before bedtime.
-England qualified first of the group while scoring more than anyone and keeping two clean sheets, but their coach is apparently garbage.
-Kane is trying to keep the Guivarch/Toni/Torres/Giroud mantra that the CF of a champion team must score at least as possible.
Great matches tomorrow: Australia - Denmark for the second spot, and a Group D where everything can happen (well, no, Mexico can't top the group, but everything else can happen).
I think you might be right, it's the only way to explain why we looked set up to play for a draw vs USA. It really was ultra-negative, pragmatic stuff. I was disappointed with that game and thought we looked a bit cowardly, but on the other hand it meant we HAD to perform against the Welsh. Would rather that than a Bale testimonial match because we were already through.I'm convinced Southgate knew exactly what he was doing against the USA. They're very young and almost certainly the fittest and most athletic side in the tournament, any one off tournament game against them was going to be tough. After drubbing Iran he knew the GD meant a point against the USA would be eough to effectively see us through, and he got it.
Capitalism bad, of course.I mean ofcourse a 48 team world cup will mean a less competitive world cup. FIFA are not doing this because they want a more competitive world cup, its all revenue related. The more teams at the WC means a further global reach in terms of fan audience and more fans coming into the country to support their country.
Although some European teams are good, I wouldn't say someone like Scotland are any better than Nigeria or Egypt.