You're the biggest culprit in those match threads, Modo.
England v Honduras
- Thread starter Dirty Sanchez
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Unfortunately he's Danish so doesn't qualify to play for England or Honduras.
Terrible Sheik...terrible
Lol, i dont even post in them during the game.
England just weren't up for it ... They should be ok in the group stages as no team will challenge too much on the flanks, which is where they're weakest defensively. But can they create chances and score goals? It rests on Studge ...
Yeah, hopefully thats Sturridges dodgy game out of the way.
Henderson was probably the man of the match for England there, he does seem to look a better player without Gerrard there.
Henderson was probably the man of the match for England there, he does seem to look a better player without Gerrard there.
Thats why they need some proper pace in the team, England lacked that last time, really hope Hodgson does put Sterling in for a start, he did put Chamberlain in against France last time so hopefully he does the same, its a real pity Chamberlain got injured.
Yea I'd think about Starting as many of Oxlaide/Sterling/Barkley as possible. They're quick and good in possession with quick feet.
Exactly like what you said earlier about getting a feeling about Algeria all over again, i cant help but feel the Italy game will be a repeat of 2012 if we go into it cautiously with those cautious type players, get the quick legs/feet on there and lets be positive, Italy are not to be feared, lets have go at them and let them worry about us.
Looks like Chamberlain will be ok by the sounds of it, thats good news.
Poor game that.
Not really troubled in any way by Honduras, but playuing against 10 men for the final 20 minutes should have seen a positive result.
No real desire, movement or energy from many of the players. Glen Johnson has no attacking threat any more. Pitiful.
Henderson and Barkley were standouts for me, and I though Lallana had a decent game too. Everyone else was meh.
Welbeck was total shit again.
Not really troubled in any way by Honduras, but playuing against 10 men for the final 20 minutes should have seen a positive result.
No real desire, movement or energy from many of the players. Glen Johnson has no attacking threat any more. Pitiful.
Henderson and Barkley were standouts for me, and I though Lallana had a decent game too. Everyone else was meh.
Welbeck was total shit again.
Definitely not, player for player they can at least match Italy, although Italy always get it together in the World cup. I like this squad, it has something about it if they can get a bit of confidence on the go. Shame they didn't get a few goal in the friendlies.
Italy are notorious slow starters and are in terrible form (I think they've not won in 7 matches).
Cahill and Big Phil should be able to handle Balotelli, and it's just up to Gerrard & co to win the battle against Pirlo & co. I think the group might be 3 teams with 6 points and Costa Rica with 0 ... Should be a great group.
Thats a good point, if theres a good time to play Italy its in the first game or 2 of a tournament.
Yes, but I think they'll struggle ...
I think England can surprise - Woy had Fulham close to winning the Europa League based on a very underrated goalie (check'ish), a solid backline that chipped in with goals every once in a while (check), strong defensive midfielders (check) and some tricky wide men (check).
He's actually got the team to do well IF he lets the attacking players play to their strengths. It's going to be tough to drop Rooney but I'd say a 3 of Ox, Lallana and Sterling behind Sturridge would be extremely difficult for all teams to handle - pace, fitness, tracking back, dangerous throughout the pitch etc ...
On paper they look average - would most non-English PL fans known who Phil Jagielka is? Leighton Baines? That's why this team can be dangerous ...
One Saints fan (apparently) wrote a well thought-out post about Lallana and England tactics in the Guardian comments section, so I'm going to repost it here. This post was in response to someone who was saying Lallana is useless and should be dropped.
===========
Consortium11> DerkNew
08 June 2014 1:38am
Recommended
22
I'm a big Lallana fan so it pains me to somewhat agree but he is in essence being misused by England.
1) Lallana isn't at his best as a winger. He's at his best as a number 10 who plays in the hole and can switch to the wing occasionally. The last time he regularly played on the wing was in the 2012/13 season... where he was little more than solid. The strong season he's coming off came on the back of him primarily playing more centrally. He's wasted on the wings... his best attributes are minimised and his weaknesses exposed.
2) Lallana's at his best when there's a lot of players playing off him so his flicks, turns and "cute" moments have more chance of getting to a players feet. As things stand the English attack is too static... there's normally one runner at best which means the opposition can not only focus on smothering Lallana himself (as opposed to being dragged around by other runners and thus creating space) and Lallana has less options to get the ball too. The relatively poor first touch of a lot of England players doesn't help.
3) Somewhat added to the above, outside of Sterling and AOC England don't really have many natural wingers going into the tournament. Sure, Lallana, Welbeck, Sturridge and Rooney have all played there but they all tend to come centrally with or without the ball. That leads to a heavily congested centre of the park which means 1) the deeper midfielders have fewer options to pass to and 2) the opposition can quite easily throw a blanket over almost all of them
So are England using Lallana to his best? No.
But should they?
That's more difficult.
Don't get me wrong. I like and rate Lallana. He's been brilliant for us over a number of seasons domestically and he's got an excellent feel-good story. He brings defensive commitment, a high workrate and a level of technical skill and flair English players aren't really associated with. But is he such a special talent, especially considering his age (26 isn't exactly old but it's not young either) that we should look to do all of the above just to get him performing at his best? Is he a player we should look to build a team around... when there are all the other options there?
If we are to use Lallana it should be in the position he plays in rather than fall into the trap of looking to fit a talented in-form player into the side regardless of whether he fits or not. That means playing him at 10. Not on the wing. So in that regard he's not really competing with Sterling or Welbeck... he's competing with Rooney and to a lesser extent Barkley. Personally I'd be tempted to try starting Lallana at 10 with Sturridge/Rooney ahead of him and two out of Welbeck, AOC or Sterling on the flanks... but with the idea being to bring on Barkley to replace him early in the second half when a fresh Barkley being more direct against a tiring defence gives us a powerful new option.
===========
Consortium11> DerkNew
08 June 2014 1:38am
Recommended
22
1) Lallana isn't at his best as a winger. He's at his best as a number 10 who plays in the hole and can switch to the wing occasionally. The last time he regularly played on the wing was in the 2012/13 season... where he was little more than solid. The strong season he's coming off came on the back of him primarily playing more centrally. He's wasted on the wings... his best attributes are minimised and his weaknesses exposed.
2) Lallana's at his best when there's a lot of players playing off him so his flicks, turns and "cute" moments have more chance of getting to a players feet. As things stand the English attack is too static... there's normally one runner at best which means the opposition can not only focus on smothering Lallana himself (as opposed to being dragged around by other runners and thus creating space) and Lallana has less options to get the ball too. The relatively poor first touch of a lot of England players doesn't help.
3) Somewhat added to the above, outside of Sterling and AOC England don't really have many natural wingers going into the tournament. Sure, Lallana, Welbeck, Sturridge and Rooney have all played there but they all tend to come centrally with or without the ball. That leads to a heavily congested centre of the park which means 1) the deeper midfielders have fewer options to pass to and 2) the opposition can quite easily throw a blanket over almost all of them
So are England using Lallana to his best? No.
But should they?
That's more difficult.
Don't get me wrong. I like and rate Lallana. He's been brilliant for us over a number of seasons domestically and he's got an excellent feel-good story. He brings defensive commitment, a high workrate and a level of technical skill and flair English players aren't really associated with. But is he such a special talent, especially considering his age (26 isn't exactly old but it's not young either) that we should look to do all of the above just to get him performing at his best? Is he a player we should look to build a team around... when there are all the other options there?
If we are to use Lallana it should be in the position he plays in rather than fall into the trap of looking to fit a talented in-form player into the side regardless of whether he fits or not. That means playing him at 10. Not on the wing. So in that regard he's not really competing with Sterling or Welbeck... he's competing with Rooney and to a lesser extent Barkley. Personally I'd be tempted to try starting Lallana at 10 with Sturridge/Rooney ahead of him and two out of Welbeck, AOC or Sterling on the flanks... but with the idea being to bring on Barkley to replace him early in the second half when a fresh Barkley being more direct against a tiring defence gives us a powerful new option.
That's like saying the Uruguay and Portugal teams look average on paper because Muslera and Bruno Alves aren't household names.
Other nations may think the squad looks average, but they'll still want to destroy England because they're playing England.
Is england really considered such a big teaM?
Big because they love to talk a big talk, not because of their success I would say.
The amount of coverage and hype the English team always gets is absurd compared to their actual ability. I'd imagine most nations would relish the opportunity to 'put them in their place' if you will.
You could use Honduras's physical style of play as an example I suppose.
This first time in years where the hype machine is at the lowest.
Italy are weak on the wings, Uruguay are a one man team, they should get out of the group and have a favourable draw so quartets should be really be the mininu! and then any thing is possible.....
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
