Day 19: Morocco vs Portugal | England vs France (QF 3&4)

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
22,006
Hypothetical but if we had a more progressive and positive manager, would we have done better (and possibly win this match) with a selection of Rashford, Kane and Saka up top with Foden, Bellingham and Rice behind?

I think we would have been far more of a threat.
starting xi was fine. what he missed was bringing on rashford soon after the 1-1.
 

Bepi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
3,909
Location
Italy
Supports
Juventus
England were clearly the better team from min 20 on, yet football is such a fine margins game. Southgate will probably go, well knowing that however high the base you pose, it is never high enough to break the ceiling.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
19,203
Location
Reichenbach Falls
In here and on ITV you would think England played well and only lost because of ref.
Keano only one calling them out.
You got 2 pens( both deserved) and still lost . Stats Im sure would prove that doesnt happen too often.
Southgate bottled it tactically for the 3rd tourney in a row when up against quality.
England were clearly tiring 10 minutes before the goal and he didnt make any subs. Deer in the headlights again.
France were decent but thats it.
Yep, this one is on Southgate who has taken England about as far as he can.
 

wangyu

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2022
Messages
1,351
Good game by England for sure but never had the feeling France had to get out of 2nd gear.
What England seem to lack most of all is self confidence. Over the decades they have built up a World Cup trauma. The same applies to Holland, Portugal and Spain (despite winning a wc fairly recently).
Compare that to France and they seem untouchable, England wasn't able to make them nervous.
 

BayernFan87

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,660
Supports
Bayern Munich
Upamecano is always aggressive which is normally a good thing, but today he was far to aggressive and always tried to get to the ball before the attacker.
Probably his worst game in the whole year, he has been Bayerns best defender this season.
 

DevilRed

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
13,033
Location
Stretford End
starting xi was fine. what he missed was bringing on rashford soon after the 1-1.
I just feel like France won it because Deschamps was brave enough to field Griezman in midfield and Giroud up top.

Those two connected for the match winner.

The equivalent would be putting Foden in central mid and having Rashford up top alongside Kane and Saka.

But that never happened for us and Foden was marked out of the game by kounde, having to hug the touchline.
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,286
I am Croatian and French. So I am a bit tired to hear that my teams are lucky. :lol:
That's fair enough, but both were lucky in the quarters, although Croatia made their own luck with a lot of grit and determination.

France have a great chance to lift the trophy now, despite looking very vulnerable and being outplayed for most of the match, but they're not imperious and a the remaining teams could beat them sitting back and being clinical, basically what they've done to England tonight.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,600
For me , deschamps took a risk and went with a far more attacking lineup despite multiple injuiries to his star players (benzema, pogba, kante etc.). He put Griezman in midfield along with the usual trident of dembele, mbappe and giroud.

In the end he was rewarded with a griezman to giroud combo that fecking done us.

For us, we went with henderson, rice and bellingham. Henderson and rice were bang average/below average and contributed feck all going forwards. Neither did they prevent the french from scoring.

There were also spells of the game where Griezman playing in midfield ran rings around us, and as aforementioned, assisted the matchwinner.

That was the difference for me.
Easy to go with the Griezman - Grioud combo for the winner, but having one less midfielder did lead to England controlling the game in midfield. I thought Griezman caused minimal problems overall, despite having a good 20 minutes or so before the first goal.

Team was set up well, stopped Mbappe, but failed to execute and conceded to a brilliant individual strike early on. England had far better chances to win today.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,600
Perhaps that was not worded properly. What I mean is that another manager would have got more out of all the talent we have. Was not praising Deschamps.
Yeah that’s fair enough. I wouldn’t disagree.
 

DevilRed

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
13,033
Location
Stretford End
Easy to go with the Griezman - Grioud combo for the winner, but having one less midfielder did lead to England controlling the game in midfield. I thought Griezman caused minimal problems overall, despite having a good 20 minutes or so before the first goal.

Team was set up well, stopped Mbappe, but failed to execute and conceded to a brilliant individual strike early on. England had far better chances to win today.
Having pickford as our number 1 is also a fecking joke too.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,915
ITV post match analysis is really just a therapy session.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
22,006
I just feel like France won it because Deschamps was brave enough to field Griezman in midfield and Giroud up top.

Those two connected for the match winner.

The equivalent would be putting Foden in central mid and having Rashford up top alongside Kane and Saka.

But that never happened for us and Foden was marked out of the game by kounde, having to hug the touchline.
i think whatever southgate did defensively was correct because mbappe was invisible, and the french frontline (best in the tournament) was not threatening at all. and i think england did enough to win, not overwhelming but better than france.
not sure if a more attacking team would have done better - the risk is opening it up for mbappe and dembele/griezmann.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
19,203
Location
Reichenbach Falls
ITV post match analysis is really just a therapy session.
At least it's one you don't have to pay for. There'll be gallons of ink spilt on the back pages after this, but the pieces will just write themselves. Just cut and paste from every England World Cup post-mortem since 1970.
 

The Brown Bull

It's Coming Home.
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
4,334
Location
Dublin.
i think whatever southgate did defensively was correct because mbappe was invisible, and the french frontline (best in the tournament) was not threatening at all. and i think england did enough to win, not overwhelming but better than france.
not sure if a more attacking team would have done better - the risk is opening it up for mbappe and dembele/griezmann.
I don’t agree that the French frontline are the best. They have the best individual in Mbappe but Giroud is pretty average and Dembele is just quick not that great.
England are just as good if not better.Don’t think England get the most from the talent they have.
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
21,757
Location
The Mathews Bridge
I generally don't give a shit about England, but that was a game they should've won. Usually they get dumped out deservedly, but I thought they were by far the better team.

Even though he won the penalty, Mason Mount was an odd sub to make when you're chasing an equaliser. He doesn't really offer anything that wasn't already on the pitch. Rashford should've come on earlier. Well, he should've started. He's been one of England's 3 best players throughout the tournament.

England could probably do with a fresh start going into the next tournament. Southgate seems to have his favourites, no matter who is performing in either club football or for England. They'd benefit from a clean slate.
 

Dazzmondo

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
9,518
i think whatever southgate did defensively was correct because mbappe was invisible, and the french frontline (best in the tournament) was not threatening at all. and i think england did enough to win, not overwhelming but better than france.
not sure if a more attacking team would have done better - the risk is opening it up for mbappe and dembele/griezmann.
I think if England had played more open they would have conceded a lot of goals with France's pace and quality in attack. This was clearly how France set up to play also, to hit them on the counter. This did make me think that Morocco could cause France problems though. They're so strong defensively and similar to England I don't see them giving France the space they'll want to counter. Wouldn't go so far as to say I think Morocco will beat France but I wouldn't completely rule them out either.
 

Eurotrash

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,840
Location
Cake or Death?
I thought England played well, and could have won with a bit of luck. First subs were about 5-10 mins too late. Rashford should have been on instead of Sterling then.
 

Wing Attack Plan R

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,911
Location
El Pueblo de la Reyna de los Angeles
For me , deschamps took a risk and went with a far more attacking lineup despite multiple injuiries to his star players (benzema, pogba, kante etc.). He put Griezman in midfield along with the usual trident of dembele, mbappe and giroud.

In the end he was rewarded with a griezman to giroud combo that fecking done us.

For us, we went with henderson, rice and bellingham. Henderson and rice were bang average/below average and contributed feck all going forwards. Neither did they prevent the french from scoring.

There were also spells of the game where Griezman playing in midfield ran rings around us, and as aforementioned, assisted the matchwinner.

That was the difference for me.
Yep, Henderson vs. Griezmann basically sums it all up.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
You think Ramsdale or Pope save either goal?
I think the first goal could be saved as it goes in the corner but it curls in so it makes it savable. It doesn’t go over the line anywhere near the corner
 

slyadams

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
2,214
I think even if Kane had scored penalty we would still have lost.
I’m not sure. For the vast majority of the game England seemed the most likely to score next. Their second was a sucker punch really.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,915
At least it's one you don't have to pay for. There'll be gallons of ink spilt on the back pages after this, but the pieces will just write themselves. Just cut and paste from every England World Cup post-mortem since 1970.
Exactly. We went out in the quarter finals is pretty standard England. The rest is noise.
 

Rayman96

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
1,327
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Also supports Rangers
The semi final matches are trash this year! This competitions been a joke.
Will agree with that. The quality in the 4 QFs was pretty dire. Even the "amazing" argentina/holland match really wasnt. It was just banter good, not football good.
Not sure if the occasion got to everyone( bar Morocco and Croatia who did exactly what they wanted) but overall that is the worst set of QF Ive watched since I started in 1978.
 

Wing Attack Plan R

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,911
Location
El Pueblo de la Reyna de los Angeles
No he wasn't. It was 1-1 for a long time in the second half. That's not winning. And when it was that, England were clearly on top playing wise. Dechampes didn't make any subs, and it worked out for him. Southgate didn't either, and it didn't work out for him. It could just as well have been the other way around. He got saved by having the better talent on the pitch, simple as.
Maybe write that down and tape it to your mirror so you can repeat to yourself every day. It won’t make it true but maybe it will make you feel better at some point, as a meditation mantra if nothing else.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,915
I’m not sure. For the vast majority of the game England seemed the most likely to score next. Their second was a sucker punch really.
Did we actually have any shots on target? Hardly any. We looked toothless in the final third all game. We weren't dominated in midfield is the best you can say.
 

huyn

Full Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
754
Supports
FC Nantes
The big difference in this game is we have a world class striker and England doesn't. :wenger:
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,600
I think the first goal could be saved as it goes in the corner but it curls in so it makes it savable. It doesn’t go over the line anywhere near the corner
Really? Thought it was pretty much as good as it gets that goal.
 

Bluelion7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
1,254
Supports
Chelsea
Chelsea ruined Sterling. No one can convince me otherwise.
He’s only been there long enough to have a sandwich … or maybe half of one.

England did seem get things screwed up in the final third though. Sterling is for getting on the end of balls in the box, not creating at the edge. Too much of Sterling, Rashford, Shaw and others play what were “sort of?” Crosses. They would send the ball in even when no one was remotely near.

It seemed reminiscent of England teams of old that thought they earned points for number of crosses attempted. I didn’t get it.
 

Rayman96

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
1,327
Location
Glasgow
Supports
Also supports Rangers
This woman pundit is absolutely fecking clueless
If you mean the one who said you should have realised Kane was incapable of scoring 2 pens in a row and you should have had another player ready to take the 2nd one, then I think you are being a bit harsh.
In my opinion she is spot on. I mean everyone expects to get at least 2 pens a game and naturally the goalie will psych you out for the 2nd one. Its so obvious really.
She should be the new England manager