Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (53 users) | |
|
| xN.07)MaK Spain. June 12 2012 18:00. Posts 928 | Profile # |
On June 12 2012 04:04 La1 wrote:
people saying england got dominated need to reconsider, england defensivly were better, and to be honest which team had the single best chance? england.. milner in on the keeper..
france can keep the ball (just like barca) but it doesnt mean you win (just like barca!) its what you do with it not how much you knock it about at the back
It just means that you win 70%+ of your games, LOL. |
| | El micro es el último recurso que les queda a los que no producen lo suficiente |
|
|
| GoooN June 12 2012 18:16. Posts 217 | Profile # |
| Good defense by England, but poo game overall. |
|
|
| La1 United Kingdom. June 12 2012 21:06. Posts 529 | Profile # |
On June 12 2012 18:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 04:04 La1 wrote:
people saying england got dominated need to reconsider, england defensivly were better, and to be honest which team had the single best chance? england.. milner in on the keeper..
france can keep the ball (just like barca) but it doesnt mean you win (just like barca!) its what you do with it not how much you knock it about at the back
It just means that you win 70%+ of your games, LOL.
until messi is not in your team then it drops !  |
| |
|
| Rebs Pakistan. June 12 2012 21:34. Posts 3245 | Profile Blog # |
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.Last edit: 2012-06-12 21:36:09 |
|
|
| Sated England. June 12 2012 21:53. Posts 3429 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box.
England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box.
The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations:
a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers
b) Italy have 3 centre-backs
So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =PLast edit: 2012-06-12 21:54:09 |
| | EU Masters Protoss Playing For Team SC2Improve ~ www.sc2improve.org ~ "I'd rather play a strategy that is worse but that I feel confident in than play the better strategy not really feeling it and not being 100% behind it" - Grubby | |
|
|
| Rebs Pakistan. June 12 2012 22:45. Posts 3245 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
No I disagree, I think they are as good. They do it day in day out in the supposed best league in the world.
And you just pointed out the stylistic differences. Throwing wing backs up front is a totally different way to play than spraying it to your wingers.
You get men forward almost by default because you have to maintain posession to let your wingbacks move up and you actually end up playing some football. England rarely ever did that because there is no onus to get forward if your midfield is just going to sit and watch 2 or 3 guys try to beat France by themselves.
Knocking it upfront for Welbeck to chase pathetically all game (which he did great to his credit) isnt what Italy was doing not even close, they were bringing their midfield up to help and pass it around for their wingbacks to get forward quite regularly.
And then you had Gerrard and Parker who aside from the odd occasion were pretty much glued to their own final third.
The fundamental difference is in the mentality of wanting to get forward and create chances in open play, instead of hoping a foray every 20 mins will get you somewhere. The philosophy in itself is a completely different style.
Also I will have you note France while decent is no Spain in posession.
You can pull an Alexi Lala's and argue your players arent very good. I think thats bullshit. They are that good they just arent doing it because they are to afraid to lose, I dont blame them.
Care to give it another go =p ?Last edit: 2012-06-12 22:57:44 |
|
|
 Aeroplaneoverthesea United Kingdom. June 12 2012 23:24. Posts 1694 | Profile # |
On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
In helps that Italy has a world class ball playing midfielder in Pirlo who can slice teams open on the counter with one pass.
In Pirlo's place we have Scott Parker...
Italy also have a far better pick of forwards to make the most of what chances you do get in Cassano, Balotelli and Di Natale. We have Welbeck, Carroll and Defoe.Last edit: 2012-06-12 23:25:28 |
|
|
| Rebs Pakistan. June 12 2012 23:29. Posts 3245 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 23:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
In helps that Italy has a world class ball playing midfielder in Pirlo who can slice teams open on the counter with one pass. In Pirlo's place we have Scott Parker... Italy also have a far better pick of forwards to make the most of what chances you do get in Cassano, Balotelli and Di Natale. We have Welbeck, Carroll and Defoe.
Gerrard ? Welbeck did really well, better than Balotelli would in the same situation imo (I can already visualize the petulance) and Young was playing in behind him who is inconsistent Ill grant but still good enough if he gets help.
Ofc having key players injured never helped either, still going forward its worrying that everything is hanging on Rooney.Last edit: 2012-06-12 23:35:13 |
|
|
| Sated England. June 12 2012 23:45. Posts 3429 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 22:45 Rebs wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
No I disagree, I think they are as good. They do it day in day out in the supposed best league in the world. And you just pointed out the stylistic differences. Throwing wing backs up front is a totally different way to play than spraying it to your wingers. You get men forward almost by default because you have to maintain posession to let your wingbacks move up and you actually end up playing some football. England rarely ever did that because there is no onus to get forward if your midfield is just going to sit and watch 2 or 3 guys try to beat France by themselves. Knocking it upfront for Welbeck to chase pathetically all game (which he did great to his credit) isnt what Italy was doing not even close, they were bringing their midfield up to help and pass it around for their wingbacks to get forward quite regularly. And then you had Gerrard and Parker who aside from the odd occasion were pretty much glued to their own final third. The fundamental difference is in the mentality of wanting to get forward and create chances in open play, instead of hoping a foray every 20 mins will get you somewhere. The philosophy in itself is a completely different style. Also I will have you note France while decent is no Spain in posession. You can pull an Alexi Lala's and argue your players arent very good. I think thats bullshit. They are that good they just arent doing it because they are to afraid to lose, I dont blame them. Care to give it another go =p ?
As always, Rebs, your comprehension of the English language is terrible. The reason it is the same style is because the overall aim is the same; both teams aimed to play through-balls into the channels for their forwards/wingers/wing-backs to chase down whilst playing with a solid defensive line. If you watch the Italy vs. Spain game again then you will see that, although Italy did keep the ball in the centre of midfield much better than England did, their main threats came from playing long-balls into open space for their forwards and wing-backs to chase. Balotelli's back-heeled control leading up to Italy's goal is a perfect example of this; a ball played into space for a striker to chase down. This is exactly the sort of thing that England wanted to do, we just didn't execute it properly.
The difference between the two teams is their formation. Style and formation are linked, but they're not the same thing. We need to improve our execution if we're going to threaten any of the big teams, but I think our style should at least get us out of our group after watching the Sweden vs. Ukraine game.
On June 12 2012 23:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
In helps that Italy has a world class ball playing midfielder in Pirlo who can slice teams open on the counter with one pass. In Pirlo's place we have Scott Parker... Italy also have a far better pick of forwards to make the most of what chances you do get in Cassano, Balotelli and Di Natale. We have Welbeck, Carroll and Defoe.
Exactly. We don't have quality playmakers in the England squad, which means we can't really expect our midfield to run the show. Gerrard is the closest thing we have, but he is so obsessed with "Hollywood" passes that he gives the ball away far too often. It's a shame Paul Scholes can't be given some sort of pill that reduces his age by twenty years =P
Our lack of any world-class central midfielders is exactly why Hodgson's tactical choices have been very smart. By playing a style that focuses more on the wide-men and the forwards, we don't have to be overly reliant on our central midfielders picking stunning passes.Last edit: 2012-06-12 23:47:32 |
| | EU Masters Protoss Playing For Team SC2Improve ~ www.sc2improve.org ~ "I'd rather play a strategy that is worse but that I feel confident in than play the better strategy not really feeling it and not being 100% behind it" - Grubby | |
|
|
| Rebs Pakistan. June 13 2012 00:37. Posts 3245 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 23:45 Sated wrote:
As always, Rebs, your comprehension of the English language is terrible. The reason it is the same style is because the overall aim is the same; both teams aimed to play through-balls into the channels for their forwards/wingers/wing-backs to chase down whilst playing with a solid defensive line. If you watch the Italy vs. Spain game again then you will see that, although Italy did keep the ball in the centre of midfield much better than England did, their main threats came from playing long-balls into open space for their forwards and wing-backs to chase. Balotelli's back-heeled control leading up to Italy's goal is a perfect example of this; a ball played into space for a striker to chase down. This is exactly the sort of thing that England wanted to do, we just didn't execute it properly.
The difference between the two teams is their formation. Style and formation are linked, but they're not the same thing. We need to improve our execution if we're going to threaten any of the big teams, but I think our style should at least get us out of our group after watching the Sweden vs. Ukraine game.
And as usual you try to emphasize semantics and eventually can only take pot shots that have nothing to do with football.One can even argue the overall aim is to win. Stop setting up your own standards for what constitutes a style and what doesnt really. Pretty standard rhetoric on your part. You define the boundaries yourself wether its aim or posession or whatever and then reject alternatives.
A different formation will involve different styles for the most part, while it is possible for there to be some overlap if your playing wingers your wingbacks do not get the same purchase. Unless you go all gung ho in which case its a different style.
Thats not how it works. The game is to fluid and pigeonholing "styles" is about the last thing you can do in the modern game. Its pretty sad that you have still failed to identify that. Although you concede it to some degree which is confusing to say the least.
I believe the most important aspect that comes into what "style" you play is the mentality of what you want to achieve and how you want to go about achieving it. Playing not to lose is a different style then playing to win, is what I could get at. Even within the same "style" if we go by your definition. Wether you call it a failure execution or an unwillingness to execute changes it a fair bit. I think it is an unwillingness you call it failure.Last edit: 2012-06-13 01:08:47 |
|
|
| Aeroplaneoverthesea United Kingdom. June 13 2012 06:12. Posts 1694 | Profile # |
On June 12 2012 23:29 Rebs wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 23:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
In helps that Italy has a world class ball playing midfielder in Pirlo who can slice teams open on the counter with one pass. In Pirlo's place we have Scott Parker... Italy also have a far better pick of forwards to make the most of what chances you do get in Cassano, Balotelli and Di Natale. We have Welbeck, Carroll and Defoe.
Gerrard ? Welbeck did really well, better than Balotelli would in the same situation imo (I can already visualize the petulance) and Young was playing in behind him who is inconsistent Ill grant but still good enough if he gets help. Ofc having key players injured never helped either, still going forward its worrying that everything is hanging on Rooney.
Gerrard isn't interested in any pass that isn't a 40 yard defence splitter. He's the polar opposite of Pirlo who consistantly picks out the correct pass and never gives the ball away.
Instead of that Gerrard goes for the hollywood ball every time and gives the ball away a good 5-10 times a game minimum.
Welbeck didn't play well at all (and I'm a Man Utd fan) he didn't trouble the goalkeeper all game, he doesn't hold the ball up well or bring others into play like Llorente does and nor do he get in behind the striker to create space for Young like an Eto'o would. He just sort of ran about up front a bit not doing much of anything at all.
Playing Young behind the striker is just a frankly bizzare decision in general which doesn't play to Young's strengths at all. Gerrard is much better suited to that role and we can then play Young out wide instead of Chamberlain (who looked so incredibly out of his depth at this level). If only he'd brought Carrick so we had a player in the team who can actually disribute the ball without losing it or passing backwards.Last edit: 2012-06-13 06:17:33 |
|
|
| Rebs Pakistan. June 13 2012 06:31. Posts 3245 | Profile Blog # |
On June 13 2012 06:12 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 23:29 Rebs wrote:
On June 12 2012 23:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:53 Sated wrote:
On June 12 2012 21:34 Rebs wrote:
I find it funny how Barca comes into the discussion everytime some criticizes negative tactics. Not that I have a problem with England playing the way they did, although I dont see it getting them very far. Then again its not like playing like the PL hotshots their team has, gets them anywhere either. Its a typical Woy team and they players have for the most part taken the philosophy to heart so I dont see the problem.
No one is saying that you have to play like Barca to play a winning game. Why not play like Italy ? They were organized and managed to strike a good balance. Gerrard himself pointed out that they can be better on the ball and they will have to be.
Italy play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wing-backs/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. England play a defensive style that aims to spray the ball out to their wingers/strikers who get into the channels and put balls into the box. The differences aren't really stylistic since we're trying to achieve the same aims; we're just going about it with slightly different formations: a) Italy have wing-backs instead of wingers b) Italy have 3 centre-backs So, to your question: "Why not play like Italy?". We're trying to, we're just not as good =P
In helps that Italy has a world class ball playing midfielder in Pirlo who can slice teams open on the counter with one pass. In Pirlo's place we have Scott Parker... Italy also have a far better pick of forwards to make the most of what chances you do get in Cassano, Balotelli and Di Natale. We have Welbeck, Carroll and Defoe.
Gerrard ? Welbeck did really well, better than Balotelli would in the same situation imo (I can already visualize the petulance) and Young was playing in behind him who is inconsistent Ill grant but still good enough if he gets help. Ofc having key players injured never helped either, still going forward its worrying that everything is hanging on Rooney.
Gerrard isn't interested in any pass that isn't a 40 yard defence splitter. He's the polar opposite of Pirlo who consistantly picks out the correct pass and never gives the ball away. Instead of that Gerrard goes for the hollywood ball every time and gives the ball away a good 5-10 times a game minimum. Welbeck didn't play well at all (and I'm a Man Utd fan) he didn't trouble the goalkeeper all game, he doesn't hold the ball up well or bring others into play like Llorente does and nor do he get in behind the striker to create space for Young like an Eto'o would. He just sort of ran about up front a bit not doing much of anything at all. Playing Young behind the striker is just a frankly bizzare decision in general which doesn't play to Young's strengths at all. Gerrard is much better suited to that role and we can then play Young out wide instead of Chamberlain (who looked so incredibly out of his depth at this level). If only he'd brought Carrick so we had a player in the team who can actually disribute the ball without losing it or passing backwards.
lol ofc Welbeck didnt trouble the goalkeeper. He gave Mexes a fair bit of trouble turned them well and again your not getting it. You cant just stand on the ball and hold it without support thats my entire point he got no support. I think he ran at them well turned him a few times.
I think your criticism is typical near sighted unhappy fan criticism and I dont even like the English team.
Gerrard hollywooding? The entire team was launching it the first chance they got. It takes more than 1 person to make passing the ball work. Pirlo isnt just a great passer because he makes short passes you cant pass well if you have no one to pass it to.
Go watch the Italy games and check how quickly someone comes in to offer a pass to the striker "holding up the ball" then go check the England game and watch how Welbeck often keeps it for ages without support. Cba to start taking snippets from TEVO's but Im sure its all fresh in everyones head.
As for Young playing behind the striker, I found it strange aswell but it appears thats his preferred position personally unless the news coming out of the dressing room is bs.
If only they had Carrick ofcourse the poor mans Xabi Alonso was going to pass it to... who exactly? Everyones in the box..
Last edit: 2012-06-13 06:32:00 |
|
|
| GarethGore United Kingdom. June 13 2012 06:55. Posts 59 | Profile # |
I think the issue is we don't have a playmaker, theres no young scholes (carrick is good but he refused to be a backup, if otherwise he probably would have got a call up when lampard/barry were injured and needed replaced but nvm). Welbeck did really well, I hate the one lone striker it always seems they just get stuck there waiting for midfielders to arrive but never do. If we had incredible playmakers I think a more aggressive style would be better, but we don't, what we do have is world class defenders, John Terry, love him or hate him, is very good, Phil Jones, and Ashley Cole, forever im like wtf he cheated on Cheryl, is a top class defender. Its not wrong to play to our strengths.
The media et al is going to slate the team however they play so I would rather play defensive to the point they have overwhelming control of the ball but achieve very little and we get a draw and agaisnt some lesser teams probably win than play like we have in the past and think we can win by going agressive and then getting poopied on. |
|
|
| keioh France. June 13 2012 07:12. Posts 1043 | Profile Blog # |
On June 12 2012 17:07 ELA wrote:I was expecting a good game out of thesee two teams, sadly I was mistaken  To me it seemed like England just didn't want to do anything, and France just couldn't do anything.. It still amazes me how two teams with such insanely stacked lineups can play such boring matches, even after WC2010 taken into account Hope both teams shape up for their final two group matches
As it has been already said, England doesn't have atm the players to take the control of the game against a team with the technical level of France. The plan for England was obviously to try to counter us and profit of the rather shaky central defense we have. You can't expect some exciting play when your midfield is non-existent and when all your attacks rely on counter. But you can expect goals, and good effort on free-kicks phase.
For France, imo the style of play they want to emulate will never, ever, make them able to crush a wall-type opposition, because our playmakers doesn't like to do what this opposition requires to do, and thus are not good enough to penetrate this kind of defense (I'm OBVIOUSLY not meaning they're bad). Nasri is no Xavi, Ribery plays differently than Iniesta and I do think it doesn't work that much against the kind of defense England proposed, and Benzema, whil being a fantastic striker, doesn't like to be in the box as a "control tower" or a relay. So they were kind of clueless against England, but at least the tried long distance shots.
And in any case, Chelsea kind of proved that you can defend with 8 people and still win the Champion's league, even when you're facing the Barca or the Bayern ; I also don't remember the could produce beautiful plays against Chelsea. So if you take "only" France (who is no Barca nor Bayern) and England (doesn't have Drogba or a really competent midfield), you have a shitty boring match. |
| | GIMME ALL THE BELGIAN WAFFLES I CAN GET FOR THIS MONEY !!!!!! BELGIAN WAFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLEEEEEEEEES |
|
|
| SgtCoDFish United Kingdom. June 13 2012 12:04. Posts 1448 | Profile Blog # |
It wasn't the most exciting game, but I was pretty happy with the result. Felt like the referee was pretty poor though, and a few French players should've been shown a card. It gave me a small amount of confidence that we'd be able to make it out of the group where I had next to no certainty at all.
Ah well, hope we can keep up "playing well enough" |
|
|
| Aeroplaneoverthesea United Kingdom. June 13 2012 18:13. Posts 1694 | Profile # |
On June 13 2012 06:31 Rebs wrote:
lol ofc Welbeck didnt trouble the goalkeeper. He gave Mexes a fair bit of trouble turned them well and again your not getting it. You cant just stand on the ball and hold it without support thats my entire point he got no support. I think he ran at them well turned him a few times.
So first you claim he played well and now when I've called you on it you're backtracking like crazy saying he didn't really play (apparently he caused 'trouble', which doesn't mean much of anything) but that it's not his fault he didn't play well. As a Man Utd fan I've seen 80% of professional games Danny Welbeck has played in and I know as well as anyone that he is not a player who plays the lone striker role well. If you're going to play as a lone striker you either need to play the Llorente model or the Eto'o model or even better be a player like Drogba who does both. Welbeck doesn't do this. He's not clinical enough to be your only goal threat and he's not physical or good enough with his distribution to play the target man roll and bring others into.
Contrary to your incorrect opinions England did actually have good support for him with Chamberlain and Young playing quite high up the field but he rarely won the outfield balls from Mexes/Rami (both mediocre defenders) because he's not strong enough to beat them in the air and doesn't have good enough movement to make himself available for the pass and lose his man.
Perhaps in a few years Welbeck will be able to do this but right now he's nowhere near good enough to play this role for a major international side. Welbeck is a player who needs to play the Pedro/Sanchez/Ronaldo role as the wide forward in a front three. He's been played completely out of position and it really shows.
I think your criticism is typical near sighted unhappy fan criticism and I dont even like the English team.
I.E it's the criticism of someone who knows the players inside out and actually has a clue what he's talking about.
Gerrard hollywooding? The entire team was launching it the first chance they got. It takes more than 1 person to make passing the ball work. Pirlo isnt just a great passer because he makes short passes you cant pass well if you have no one to pass it to.
Once again you're backtracking from you earlier terrible point. You suggested Gerrard for the Pirlo role, not me, and now when I tell you why you're wrong and it's an awful idea you're dodge the point entirely and blame everyone else for being just as unsuitable as Gerrard. Yet it was you who claimed Gerrard was suitable, and now you're saying he's not and neither are any other England players.
Go watch the Italy games and check how quickly someone comes in to offer a pass to the striker "holding up the ball" then go check the England game and watch how Welbeck often keeps it for ages without support. Cba to start taking snippets from TEVO's but Im sure its all fresh in everyones head.
Because Italy are playing two strikers and no wingers. Why would you attempt to compare a team with Cassano/Balotelli (Di Natale) which is as bog standard number 9 with a 10 arrangement as you will ever find to a team playing a winger and a wide forward up front. England's setup didn't work not because we had bad players but because both our front two have not business playing in a front two in those positions. Welbeck is just as much the problem as Young is because Welbeck is not a number 9, he plays that position badly and played it badly against France.
As for Young playing behind the striker, I found it strange aswell but it appears thats his preferred position personally unless the news coming out of the dressing room is bs.
Players often don't know what's best for them. Gerrard always wants to play in a midfield too but his lack of discipline and poor ball retention has meant he was always better behind the striker. Beckham always wanted to play in the centre as well but his best position by a mile (when he still had legs) was wide right as again he lacked the positioning skills to play the Alonso/Carrick/Busquets role.
If only they had Carrick ofcourse the poor mans Xabi Alonso was going to pass it to... who exactly? Everyones in the box..
Good passers bring other players into the game. Players like Carrick and Alonso make other players look good and Carrick is also better defensively than Gerrard and would allow Gerrard to play the position on the pitch where he was once a world class player, not the position where he's a liability.
Italy is no Spain in terms of off the ball movement but Pirlo still looked leagus better than anyone else in a blue shirt.
[/QUOTE]
|
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
