I think you are very much confusing Sweden ARE rubbish with Sweden WERE rubbish.Given that we’ve established Sweden are rubbish would we have qualified in a group of them, Korea and Mexico?
At one point I thought young Sessegnon might have sneaked into the squad. He would have probably been the nearest to a like for like with Sterling. He has bags of oace and is tricky.A lot of people are saying that now. Easy to say in hindsight,
I certainly didn't anticipate the detrimental effect taking Sterling off would have.
Probably England need to find a more like for like replacement.
I asked the same question. Still waiting on a reply.Meh.....I'm not as arsed or as down as I thought I'd be.....I've really enjoyed this world cup.
England did well to get the last 4.......flattering perhaps....but they can only play the teams the draw throws up.....
I had Harry Kane as top scorer @ 16/1......I assume goals scored in the dead rubber 3rd/4th game still count towards the golden boot?
I think you are very much confusing Sweden ARE rubbish with Sweden WERE rubbish.
We played well against them, but in that match-up with us they were particularly poor. Teams do have off days you know. We all know Sweden did extremely well to even qualify from the group they were in.
But just because a team plays badly in one game it doesn't mean they are a bad side. England aren't a bad side, but we looked one in that second half last night.
It's not always just black and white. So much grey too. Sweden are a decent side, but on the day against us they didn't play well at all and our earlyish goal completely threw their game plan of sit back and hit us on the break.
Meh.....I'm not as arsed or as down as I thought I'd be.....I've really enjoyed this world cup.
England did well to get the last 4.......flattering perhaps....but they can only play the teams the draw throws up.....
I had Harry Kane as top scorer @ 16/1......I assume goals scored in the dead rubber 3rd/4th game still count towards the golden boot?
I asked the same question. Still waiting on a reply.
Would guess so.
Not really. Get your point, but the difference last night in that second half was that Croatia were a league apart. Quicker, more dangerous, better possession, more skilful etc. etc.Using the argument you used to explain away England's defeat last night, you could say Sweden lost as soon as they came up against a decent team.
Kane might not even play. Can see Southgate maybe resting him. He looked shot last night. Really leggy and weary.Just googled it and yes they do.......just watch lukaku go and bag a fucking hatrick while Kane goes through the motions....that'll piss me off more than defeat to the Croats....
I do NOT want nother bout of extra time and pens thank you very much!!Best hope we get some pens for Kane to score.
A lot of people are saying that now. Easy to say in hindsight,
I certainly didn't anticipate the detrimental effect taking Sterling off would have.
Probably England need to find a more like for like replacement.
Yep and Ferdinand and Neville saying what a poor side Croatia are and that we should beat them easily.Also apparently Modric was saying they used the English attitude as motivation.
It's true though, people way ahead of themselves with all of the "It's coming home" nonsense.
I think you are very much confusing Sweden ARE rubbish with Sweden WERE rubbish.
We played well against them, but in that match-up with us they were particularly poor. Teams do have off days you know. We all know Sweden did extremely well to even qualify from the group they were in.
But just because a team plays badly in one game it doesn't mean they are a bad side. England aren't a bad side, but we looked one in that second half last night.
It's not always just black and white. So much grey too. Sweden are a decent side, but on the day against us they didn't play well at all and our earlyish goal completely threw their game plan of sit back and hit us on the break.
Also apparently Modric was saying they used the English attitude as motivation.
It's true though, people way ahead of themselves with all of the "It's coming home" nonsense. Way over the top with the bandwagon.
Yeah. I'll always thought the it's coming home stuff was a bit tongue in cheek tbh.That came completely from self-deprecation, it started when we were about to kick off a World Cup with Gareth Southgate as manager and so clearly we had no chance. Anyone seeing that and taking it at face value was really missing the point, it was always a form of gallows humour
That came completely from self-deprecation, it started when we were about to kick off a World Cup with Gareth Southgate as manager and so clearly we had no chance. Anyone seeing that and taking it at face value was really missing the point, it was always a form of gallows humour
Yes...there are definitely two camps.so you believe we had a hard route to the semi’s? we were 45 mins away from a final but poor in play management by both Southgate and the players messed it up. how did Croatia look fitter and hungrier in extra time considering they’ve played more minutes and older?
Well we will have to agree to disagree then. People have already listed the teams they were up against to qualify and they were rather unlucky to lose to Germany right at the death too in this tournament itself.Sweden are rubbish. They are not a good side whatsoever. It was not just an off day for them.
They were poor in all of their games, it's just some of their opponents weren't as challenging as us. The same goes in qualifying and for the last couple of years at least - Sweden are not good at all.
don't see whats wrong with people singing 'its coming home'. After all, we all sing songs like "We're by far the greatest team, the world has very seen" about our clubs (despite being in league 1, 2 whatever), and good old 'Ke sara sara' after a 4-2 defeat of Wycombe early on in the Checkatrade trophy. Whats the difference?
Sterling never came out after half time so that argument doesn't really wash to be honest. He was pretty decent in the first half but was completely absent second half and we looking lost from the moment we kicked that half off.
I said we needed to make changes about 5 minutes before the goal because you could see it coming. We should have changed the midfield as well as Sterling though.
All the part timers will go back into the woodwork now. How many of the 'It's coming home' will be at the Ricoh in 23 days time?
England have always reminded me so much of the City at times.Equivalent to him getting a knighthood from you here
tbh I'd have kept Sterling on and brought Rashford on too. Their central defence was completely incapable of defending against pace, so stick as much on as possible. If I was France, I'd be lining Mbappe up with eager anticipation.
Right about the midfield though. And we did seem to go a bit one-dimensional and try and play over the top at the first sign of getting the ball, which meant it came straight back at us.
Definitely should have brought Loftus-Cheek on. He would have given us some added muscle and could have helped us dictate play.We should all be disappointed we didn't win that game. Whilst Croatia was the better side overall, we had the chances to put the game beyond Croatia's reach in the first half. But, everyone should be proud of the team and the manager for restoring the belief in the national team and this tournament will fundamentally change the national psyche. We've reached a semi-final and won a penalty-shootout with the 3rd or so youngest team, and let us not forget a team that lacked international experience, Maguire made his international debut last season, for example. Croatia, by contrast, is one of the most experienced teams in the World Cup and it showed last night because they got stronger as the game carried on.
Evaluating last night, the persistent criticism after every game was that we don't create many open play chances and ironically, we had 2 chances we should've done better with, Kane's chance and Lingard's from outside the box. After the 2nd half and extra time, we didn't create the chances to win. For those criticising Sterling, Rashford basically made the same mistakes as him and I'm not going to blame him because I think the problem was the midfield. IMO, changes that needed to be made weren't made and it probably cost us and the midfield struggled massively after the 1st half. One of Delph, Dier or Loftus-Cheek needed to come on. If I was Southgate at that moment, I probably would've brought Dier on when we were ahead and pushed Henderson a bit forward because we lacked the means to hold to the ball and really needed a midfield partner for Henderson -- the same reasoning for bringing Delph on, but he's generally better on the ball than Dier (but less defensive). After the equaliser, there was a definite case for bringing Loftus-Cheek on because Dele looked very fatigued and in the context of us losing that midfield battle, Loftus-Cheek would've been someone to at least carry the ball forward which we lacked throughout the second half and onwards. Souness was critical of Lingard and Dele and I tend to agree that they did fail to provide the link between Henderson and the strikers and particularly Sterling and Rashford had a tough time of doing anything with the ball because neither player had options in the box really. I'm sure both the team and Southgate will learn from these experiences and it will hurt them because this was a winnable game and could've been won in the first half.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?