Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
I'm shit talking, BB. I don't really mean it.
You're surely referring to Stones and Maguire?Yup I’ve nothing against the England side, though some of their players have become pretty overrated. It was the fans on here that me rooting against them. Some absolute madness ensued in this thread.
Youre not allowed to say that in here, youre obviously sad and bitter and anti englishWe were given a ridiculously easy run to the semi finals. Whilst it was nice that we stayed in the World Cup a bit longer and won a few extra games, it still masked our obvious deficiencies across the whole team.
We weren't amazing, nor abysmal.
I'd say we played to our level and went as far as we could.
The disappointment comes when you analyse how weak the side of the draw we were on was and the likelihood of such an event occurring again.
I thought Maguire was OK, although Stones was shaky but he is always shaky even at City. I thought England was weak in MF but can't pin the blame entirely on Henderson as he was supported only by Alli and Lingard, not my ideal MF partnership if you want to dominate MF. So I put the blame on Southgate on team selection hope he will learn from this.You're surely referring to Stones and Maguire?
It is coming home, FIFA and the World Cup are French creationsThought it was “coming home”?
That's true. Southgate has done well in that regard.Well it's certainly an improvement over getting knocked out by a country with 0.6% of our population in the first knockout stage.
Spot on.England met just 2 decent sides during the WC, both of whom it should have won against (Belgium and Croatia) but lost instead. This England side might not be the best we've ever seen but I refuse to believe it lacked the talent needed to beat Belgium or Croatia. In my opinion England lacked what Brazil, Spain and Argentina lacked ie a decent and experienced manager.
Belgium and Croatia are both better teams than us. Both have players who have won more. England are a very average side. Last 16 would have been par for me.England met just 2 decent sides during the WC, both of whom it should have won against (Belgium and Croatia) but lost instead. This England side might not be the best we've ever seen but I refuse to believe it lacked the talent needed to beat Belgium or Croatia. In my opinion England lacked what Brazil, Spain and Argentina lacked ie a decent and experienced manager.
I strongly disagree.Belgium and Croatia are both better teams than us. Both have players who have won more. England are a very average side. Last 16 would have been par for me.
Our team is based on Spurs players who've won nothing. Just too much hype. No manager was getting further than the semis with this England squad. Southgate did well.
You say that but we lost to Iceland in the Euros with a dancing bear in charge. I reckon if Southgate weren't there we would have gone out to Colombia.I strongly disagree.
All teams have an unbalanced team with 2-3 top players augmenting a less talented side. However I think that player by player England has a better side then both Belgium and Croatia especially the latter (Perisic is decent but mandzukic is hardly WC)
Regarding Southgate, he faltered once tactics became important. I think even a dancing bear could lead England to success against Panama, Colombia (minus James) and Tunisia.
This should be a race to the top not to the bottom. Unlike Italy who are counting the euro cents, England can afford a much better manager then some average defender with near zero experience at managerial level.You say that but we lost to Iceland in the Euros with a dancing bear in charge. I reckon if Southgate weren't there we would have gone out to Colombia.
You can't have watched much of England over the last 10 or so year if you're going to make comments like that. Failure against those sort of sides at a WC have been our speciality.Regarding Southgate, he faltered once tactics became important. I think even a dancing bear could lead England to success against Panama, Colombia (minus James) and Tunisia.
It's because it further strengthens the argument that Southgate is not good enough. England has more strength in depth then Belgium hasWhy do people bring up be the Belgium game as one we should have won? It's a pointless match to reference seeing as neither team played their first side. Our first team played one properly good team all tournament, and as we expected came up short but we took them all the way, if we'd stuck away our chances, we'd be in the final now, but that's football.
Except the top managers are club managers who have no interest in the England position. There's not exactly a big pool to pick from.This should be a race to the top not to the bottom. Unlike Italy who are counting the euro cents, England can afford a much better manager then some average defender with near zero experience at managerial level.
And most of the time its because of the same darn thing ie lack of quality management. Don't take me wrong. England has been lacking that top quality side capable of winning the WC for decades. However that doesn't justify under achievement.You can't have watched much of England over the last 10 or so year if you're going to make comments like that. Failure against those sort of sides at a WC have been our speciality.
I don't think many people would agree with you there, not the squad we took to the world cup anyway, but alright.It's because it further strengthens the argument that Southgate is not good enough. England has more strength in depth then Belgium has
I beg to differ on that.Except the top managers are club managers who have no interest in the England position. There's not exactly a big pool to pick from.
As said, while I do concede that England lack the team to win the WC I do believe it has what it takes to take Croatia down and to beat Belgium B side with their own B side. What let England down is tactics.I don't think many people would agree with you there, not the squad we took to the world cup anyway, but alright.
Hum Perisic, Rakitic, Modric, Lovren, Mandzukic, Vrsaljko even Subasic are players a level way above West Ham, and England best 11 better side than Belgium where? Maybe on the Playstation I guess?I strongly disagree.
All teams have an unbalanced team with 2-3 top players augmenting a less talented side. However I think that player by player England has a better side then both Belgium (although that's a close thing) and especially Croatia. Modric is good, Perisic is decent but not WC. Same as mandzukic. The rest are really West Ham level.
Regarding Southgate, he faltered once tactics became important. I think even a dancing bear could lead England to success against Panama, Colombia (minus James) and Tunisia.
Well Perisic and Modric are top players, although I doubt Spurs would swap them with Dele Alli and Harry Kane. The rest are players England should have easily countered. Regarding Belgium they played their B side against England B side. Surely you admit that England has better strength in depth then Belgium.Hum Perisic, Rakitic, Modric, Lovren, Mandzukic, Vrsaljko even Subasic are players a level way above West Ham, and England best 11 better side than Belgium where? Maybe on the Playstation I guess?
Disagree. Belgium has many better player in my opinion. Hazard and KDB are (a lot) better than Englands best player (Kane) and Lukaku is atleast the same level as Kane. Vertonghen, Vermaelen, Alderweireld and Kompany are all better than Stones, Maquire, centre back Walker, Jones and Cahill. Midfield players like Witsel, Fellaini, Henderson, Lingard and Dele Ali (he had a shit WC) are all a bit the same to me.. alright but nothing special.I strongly disagree.
All teams have an unbalanced team with 2-3 top players augmenting a less talented side. However I think that player by player England has a better side then both Belgium and Croatia especially the latter (Perisic is decent but mandzukic is hardly WC)
Regarding Southgate, he faltered once tactics became important. I think even a dancing bear could lead England to success against Panama, Colombia (minus James) and Tunisia.
That's actually the two squads that clashed swords during the WC.Disagree. Belgium has many better player in my opinion. Hazard and KDB are (a lot) better than Englands best player (Kane) and Lukaku is atleast the same level as Kane. Vertonghen, Vermaelen, Alderweireld and Kompany are all better than Stones, Maquire, centre back Walker, Jones and Cahill. Midfield players like Witsel, Fellaini, Henderson, Lingard and Dele Ali (he had a shit WC) are all a bit the same to me.. alright but nothing special.
Croatia has a comparable attack and defense to England in my opinion but the Croatian midfield is something England can only dream about. Croatia has a Real Madrid player on the bench who would likely be Englands best midfielder.
We have been down the highly paid foreign manager route and achieved very little despite a better playing base (certainly under Sven). Southgate’s achievements to date go beyond mere results - he has reconnected the national team with the country and made “the impossible job” look like just another national team job. Now he has to show he can improve the team and develop himself as a manager (use of subs is one area he could improve). There are no guarantees and this could have been a false dawn but he has certainly earnt the right to show he can develop England into more serious contenders.I beg to differ on that.
Conte accepted the national team with Italy and would be most certainly interested to do the same with England especially since it can afford him. In medical terms if you need a surgeon and the top surgeon refuses to operate on you, you don't settle for a cobbler.
Sven was more busy running after women and getting out of scandals to focus on his job. Capello was at the end of his career and only cared for his last big pay cheque. You were unlucky on that regard.We have been down the highly paid foreign manager route and achieved very little despite a better playing base (certainly under Sven). Southgate’s achievements to date go beyond mere results - he has reconnected the national team with the country and made “the impossible job” look like just another national team job. Now he has to show he can improve the team and develop himself as a manager (use of subs is one area he could improve). There are no guarantees and this could have been a false dawn but he has certainly earnt the right to show he can develop England into more serious contenders.
This are players who start every week for clubs who reach or reached in the past advanced stages of the Champions League? Do you know how many Spurs players reached the QF of the Champions League on their life? 0.Well Perisic and Modric are top players, although I doubt Spurs would swap them with Dele Alli and Harry Kane. The rest are players England should have easily countered. Regarding Belgium they played their B side against England B side. Surely you admit that England has better strength in depth then Belgium.
What's consistent in this WC is that those with a crappy manager had underachieved against decent opposition whom they should have won against. Spain, Brazil, Argentina and now England. You don't need a manager for England to beat Tunisia and Panama.
The technical standard of their defensive line improved, the midfield suffered from the old chronical problems they always had, players who can stop, pause, breed instead always running and sprinting like if there is no tomorrow.There is one thing that I find very perplexing about England, I noticed it against Colombia. English players aren't top technicians at least not the ones selected, it's strange to think that a great nation like England has a technical level comparable to Sweden or Denmark. You can see it in the PL but it's even more obvious in international tournaments.
Agree with everything else, but did it actually?The English clearly overrate their national team. I know the whole "It's coming home" fiasco started out as a bit of a joke, but the longer the team stayed on, the more nauseatingly arrogant this thing got.
This current side lacks top class midfielders. Henderson and Dier are decent to solid, but they're level below of what's needed to win big tournaments. The Croatian team that was supposed to be absolutely knackered after the two 120 minute marathons they went through bossed the center of the pitch against a younger English side. When you can't keep the ball against a quality side for any serious period of time, you'll be constantly under pressure and eventually it'll cost you. Croatia's passing game and technical ablity is clearly superior to the English team, it was clear as day.
What really surprised me though is that Croatians looked the fitter of the two sides as the game went on. That's one thing Southgate should be asked about, because that doesn't make any sense.