Board index ‹ Other Sports ‹ Other Sports ‹ Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition

I just dont think that the current England squad is capable of playing for a draw. There's too big a risk that the midfield will run out of gas and we will invite the Ukraine's on to us as we drop deeper and deeper. We need to take control early on while we're still fresh and capable of playing with some tempo. I really doubt that Parker can play 3 games in 8 days. I would drop Milner back into the holding role (where he doesn't give the ball away as much), bring in Ox for Parker and Rooney for Carroll.

McClennan wrote:

I'd keep the same team but bring in Rooney for Carroll. A front three who play together every week sounds too good to not try. It's also a front three which has some speed because we can't play Young on the left and Walcott on the right but I expect we'll need to speed to play on the counter. Ukraine need to win, we don't so I'm pretty sure Hodgson will play for that because it makes perfect sense.

Do you not think Welbeck and Rooney have to similar playing style, i.e. fast, sharp, movement, whereas Carroll offers something different, a massive airel threat, big presence and will hold up the play, and give flicks ons to Rooney etc. As I've said, Carroll and Rooney could be devastatingly good.

My take on it all so far. The Germans have displayed ruthless efficiency, top athletes, skill in abundance, robotical in their performance, every player knows his job. Deserved favourites. France and Spain quite similar in their game plan and performance, tip tap, to me to you, hold onto the ball as if their lives depend on it and skill in abudance. ( Are they just a touch boring)
England, ruthless unpredictability, you need a drink inside you to watch them (and some blood pressure tablets) infuriating to the point of screaming at the telly like a mad man. Shouts of “I knew it, you complete to$$er, followed by “Go on my son I knew you could do it”
Watching Danny Welbeck walk about in central midfield whilst the score was 1-2 and 2-2, all he needed was a dog on a lead to complete the act. And then providing the deft touch of the Championships so far. Ashley Cole (amongst others) deciding to wear his Pin Ball boots and having his Rabbit in the headlight game. Knowing the the Pubs and clubs throughout England are full of folk on a high, and then looking for the Samaritans number, back to a high, and then euphoria. Its not pretty, it’s not technically perfect, and of all the teams in this Championship they have that ‘soap opera’ appeal. You can’t take your eyes off it. Nobody in their right mind expects to get beyond the quarters. And one last thing how does an opposing coach know how to set his team up against us. (scratch head)

EL CAMO wrote:

To go back to the subject of Dutch qualification, 11/2 is a teasing price!
Short of any filthy tactics from Germany/Denmark they could easily do it.

5/1 Spain 2 Croatia 2


Surprisingly short odds!

Play a containing game a la against France = people moaning we aren't exciting or attacking enough.
Play a more expansive and risky game a la against Sweden = same people moaning that we are too open.

Hodgson just can't win with some people.

Was an excellent turn around for me. From a position of relative comfort at half-time to being all over the shop after an hour to winning and possibly winning by more than we did in the end. One thing that can't be faulted is the team spirit and determination to get out of the hole we got ourselves into.

Ordsall Quays Red wrote:

Play a containing game a la against France = people moaning we aren't exciting or attacking enough.
Play a more expansive and risky game a la against Sweden = same people moaning that we are too open.

Hodgson just can't win with some people.

Was an excellent turn around for me. From a position of relative comfort at half-time to being all over the shop after an hour to winning and possibly winning by more than we did in the end. One thing that can't be faulted is the team spirit and determination to get out of the hole we got ourselves into.

England weren't open because they were playing expansively, they were open because the midfield was sh*te and incapable of getting a hold of the ball for long spells. If you think last night was expansive, you clearly can't grasp expansive football; how can you play an expansive game when your four starting midfielders offered almost nothing all game?

I was criticising them for being open because to succeed, you have to control the manner of the game. England were neither great defensively or great offensively. I watched the French in the game before and they were always in control, even if they weren't playing particularly expansively or fluently. They were solid in their shape and Ukraine struggled to break them down all night, yet they done enough to snatch two goals for a comfortable win eventually. As a spectator it was fun to watch and it was much better than the game against France on Monday, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about the faults and criticisms of the side. When I criticised England for being too negative, it wasn't that I was asking them to play open or leave the defence exposed, it was that I felt they didn't make an attempt to play and resorted to aimless play without intent. I mentioned Italy as a good example of playing football yet still remaining strong defensively and getting men behind the ball. I don't think I'm asking for a lot by asking England to pass and dribble the ball with a bit of intent, but I guess that's too much for some to get their head around. Passing? Dribbling? Nahhh, we'll stick to our fourty yard crosses and seventy yard diagonals, pal.

Hart was at fault for Swedens 2nd goal for me...the cross was on his 6yd box and he just stood there,should have come for the cross and got ball,man and everything.

fc baldy wrote:

Hart was at fault for Swedens 2nd goal for me...the cross was on his 6yd box and he just stood there,should have come for the cross and got ball,man and everything.

I thought so too.

I thought Sweden's first was an own goal as well. It didn't look to be going in, it hit Johnson and then he knocked it in when trying to clear it.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I thought so too.

I thought Sweden's first was an own goal as well. It didn't look to be going in, it hit Johnson and then he knocked it in when trying to clear it.

Keepers nowadays seem hell bent on parrying everything.After Swedens 2nd goal,Hart came for everything with catches and punches and there was more bodies in the way then but not for the goal,when he hit the cross,im sat thinking Harts ball then thought he isnt coming for it.Also,what got me was Ibrahamovic was giving him a right gobful and he never said a thing...should have been giving him it back.

For all Zlatan's posturing and nice touches, he didn't create much. Thought we marshalled him fairly well. We paniced after half time and conceded 2 stupid goals from set pieces.

I really do cringe when there is a simple ball to feet on, and Gerrard tries to hit a 60 yard hollywood ball. Gerrard was by far our best midfielder yesterday, class player, but we need to keep it simple, and keep the ball. Whenever we put 5 or 6 passes together in midfield we look dangerous. Try the glory ball and it just keeps coming back ay tou.