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 sympathy with any voter, anyone, who having witnessed the last 14 years and then Labour in the last year and wonders just how can things be this bad  unless a) they voted for brexit b) voted Tory after 2010 c) is thinking of voting reform  because anyone who thinks reform won’t make things a thousand times worse after voting for the previous?  It is they who are the problem.  They are the reason the country is in the doldrums with an embarrassingly-timid Labour government 
    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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