Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Regardless of whether the ball crossed over the

> line or not, the referee should have blown for

> offside earlier on. While Ukraine had a strong

> case for a goal, England had an equally strong

> case for offside. The two poor decisions together

> cancelled themselves out.


Illogical nonsense.

I would rather England were beaten by Italy after trying to be creative and imaginative (Oxlade-C, Walcott) than predictable and clunky (Milner, Young) and would even be tempted to play Rooney and Carroll together.


The tournament so far has shown that none of the teams is happy with an attacker running at them and while we may not have an abundance of Ronaldos etc. we at least have a couple of young men who are willing to try it on.

Milner looks knackered and needs a rest. I'd rather the Ox started ahead of Walcott as his replacement. Walcott will still be a good impact sub as well as Defoe if we need a goal. I'd be very wary of starting Carroll up front against the Italians, they'd wind him up and try and get him sent off and I think he'd fall for it. I thought Young once again put in another poor performance but Gerrard, Terry, Johnson and Parker (who covered more ground than anyone else on the pitch 7.23 miles) were excellent though looking at Parker he doesn't look 100-per-cent fit.

I'd like to be more optimistic about our chances but I think we've done well (with a slice of luck) to get where we are so far. I think we're capable of beating the Italians but whatever happens on Sunday it'll be very close.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Regardless of whether the ball crossed over the

> > line or not, the referee should have blown for

> > offside earlier on. While Ukraine had a strong

> > case for a goal, England had an equally strong

> > case for offside. The two poor decisions

> together

> > cancelled themselves out.

>

> Illogical nonsense.




When the ball was kicked at 17 secs, you can clearly see the Ukraine forward in an offside position.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For the time being. I can't see England beating

> Italy to be fair, but I'd certainly love them to,

> I can't stand bloody Italy (the football team, for

> tis a fine place).


I can see England beating the Italians. Italy struggled against a really piss poor Irish side.

I'd like to see Milner retain his position for his battling and workrate qualities. The Italians have an abundance of guile and England needs to be on their guard. I don't think Ox and Walcott are able to maintain defensive duties concentration but I'll put them on once the game has opened up.


As for John Terry, he never had pace in the first place and so I'm a little surprise to suddenly talking about his ability to read the game. John Terry's lack of pace means that England really can't play with a defensive line up further up the field. This in itself creates problems for their midfield in terms of positioning and the ability to dominate games.


Personally, I'll keep the same side that started against Ukraine.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To be honest,the Ukrainians deserved to lose for

> being a miserable bunch of gits throughout.

>

> Who wants to watch a match of any sorts when all

> you can hear is booing? I get the point of it, but

> it just brings a air of shitness to the whole

> proceedings.


It'll be a sad day for football if fans behaviour decided the outcome of football matches, *Bob*.


I thought Ukraine played some great attacking flowing football but lacked that extra bit of quality to score goals.

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not illogical at all. UDT is right - it is

> irrelevant whether it went over the line if the

> bloke was offside in the lead up. The ref should

> have blown up for that.





The fact is that at the point it crossed the line there were no prior stoppages and it would therefore be a goal, assuming we had the technology.


A goal should be a defintive thing, other decisions are judgement calls. As well as the offside, which was a close call, there were no doubt a number of challenges that could potentially have been given as fouls. You could confuse matters further by throwing those into the mix.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to see Milner retain his position for his

> battling and workrate qualities. The Italians have

> an abundance of guile and England needs to be on

> their guard. I don't think Ox and Walcott are able

> to maintain defensive duties concentration but

> I'll put them on once the game has opened up.

>



His 'battling and workrate' were to no effect and sod the defensive duties - Young and Milner were baled out by Cole and Johnson all night - England have to attack early.


If the Italians score they are well practised at bringing down the shutters and England's 'plan B' will spend itself in frustration and yellow cards.


A faint hope may be if Balotelli plays - get Lescott and Carroll to rub him up a little and hope he explodes.

@maxxi


Milner's workrate and battling qualities led to Carroll's goal. Milner and Young are both capable players so I'll keep them. I was the first to say Young didn't have a great opening game but in the last game there were good signs of him linking up well with Rooney and Welbeck. Young's defensive qualities does leave a lot to be desired though.


Balotelli is Italy's best striker according to Mancini. A player well capable of scoring from tight positions and unlocking England's defensive barrier. I just hope Italy's manager keeps this fine talent on the bench for his petulent behaviour.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @maxxi

>

> Milner's workrate and battling qualities led to

> Carroll's goal. Milner and Young are both capable

> players so I'll keep them.


I was really referring to his performance against Ukraine - he may be just knackered or have shot his bolt for this tournament but whatever the reason he is a spent force and, I think, a potential liability.



> I was the first to say

> Young didn't have a great opening game but in the

> last game there were good signs of him linking up

> well with Rooney and Welbeck. Young's defensive

> qualities does leave a lot to be desired though.


I think Young does work well playing behind the striker in a central position but not as a winger in this set-up so if included he would be better used behind Rooney instead of Wellbeck or Carroll.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have had multiple jobs completed at my home by T.D. PLUMBFIX SOLUTIONS LTD, and I wouldn't go to anyone else now. They always come at the agreed day/time, I have never been asked to rearrange. The jobs have always been completed to extremely high standards, and as a perfectionist myself, I appreciate this level of care and detail. I'm grateful of the clear up afterward too, leaving me very little to do after the job is done. I am always blown away by the speed and efficiency  - no waffle, no flannel, just sheer hard work from start to finish. In summary - a highly professional first class service. Don't hesitate to call T.D. PLUMBFIX SOLUTIONS LTD, if you like excellence and trade people that will respect your home. 
    • Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate.  The main parties could have been more honest before the election.  Reform is deluded.
    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...