World Cup Group D

Colin Phillips said:
Any thoughts on the younger members of the squad who were given a run-out.

To my mind only Foster, Shaw and Lallana didn't look out of place.

Jones is never going to be a full-back, Smalling's distribution is awful, Wilshere seems to be going backwards and Barkley didn't impress.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can judge anybody in what was essentially a friendly.

I've said it before, we have the talent in the game but they have to be coaxed into playing as a team and without fear. Channel the Cahill into them.
 
Euronymous said:
I don't think you can judge anybody in what was essentially a friendly.

I've said it before, we have the talent in the game but they have to be coaxed into playing as a team and without fear. Channel the Cahill into them.
Click to expand...

I thought Costa Rica were rather saving themselves but I'm not sure England's younger players were. Nor should they have been. They were trying to establish themselves as prospects for the next big tournament so they should have been busting a gut. As I said before, they were bigger, faster and stronger than their opponents but only had a few half-chances to show for all their huffing and puffing.

If this is England's future it's looking bleak.
 
After seeing Italy and England go out after playing in Manaus first up, thought there may be something more to it, posted this on another forum:

Games in Manaus so far:

June 14: Italy beats England 2-1.
June 18: Croatia beat Cameroon 4-0.
June 22: United States draws Portugal 2-2.
These are the follow-up results for the first four teams:

June 19: England loses to Uruguay 2-1 in São Paulo.
June 20: Italy loses to Costa Rica 1-0 in Recife.
June 23: Cameroon loses to Brazil 4-1 in Brasilia.
June 23: Croatia loses to Mexico 3-1 in Recife.

So they've all lost their next games, conceding a fair few goals in the process (and late too). Take it one further and look at Italy and England going out with flat performances last night (of course a late goal to boot for Italy). A lot of people said it before the tournament, make no mistake, playing in conditions like Manaus has absolutely no place in this World Cup, or any World Cup for that matter, it is nothing but an absolute disgrace.

Fortunately there's only one more group game left in Manaus (Honduras v Switzerland tonight), and none in the knockout stages, so it won't affect any more big teams.

It's clear to me that both England and Italy were dramatically inferior in their next 2 games after playing in Manaus, and it is absolutely no surprise. We put in our best performance of the tournament in Manaus and we paid for it in the next game at least, we looked heavy legged and flat throughout and made 2 defensive errors (one late on) which definitely looked that way.
 
AliGupter said:
After seeing Italy and England go out after playing in Manaus first up, thought there may be something more to it, posted this on another forum:

Games in Manaus so far:

June 14: Italy beats England 2-1.
June 18: Croatia beat Cameroon 4-0.
June 22: United States draws Portugal 2-2.
These are the follow-up results for the first four teams:

June 19: England loses to Uruguay 2-1 in São Paulo.
June 20: Italy loses to Costa Rica 1-0 in Recife.
June 23: Cameroon loses to Brazil 4-1 in Brasilia.
June 23: Croatia loses to Mexico 3-1 in Recife.

So they've all lost their next games, conceding a fair few goals in the process (and late too). Take it one further and look at Italy and England going out with flat performances last night (of course a late goal to boot for Italy). A lot of people said it before the tournament, make no mistake, playing in conditions like Manaus has absolutely no place in this World Cup, or any World Cup for that matter, it is nothing but an absolute disgrace.

Fortunately there's only one more group game left in Manaus (Honduras v Switzerland tonight), and none in the knockout stages, so it won't affect any more big teams.

It's clear to me that both England and Italy were dramatically inferior in their next 2 games after playing in Manaus, and it is absolutely no surprise. We put in our best performance of the tournament in Manaus and we paid for it in the next game at least, we looked heavy legged and flat throughout and made 2 defensive errors (one late on) which definitely looked that way.
Click to expand...

The sample size... oh who cares.
 
Unfortunately the sample size can be only 3, but perhaps this is part of the reason why the 2 football teams in Manaus are also rans compared to the rest of Brazil?

I was shocked by how poor Italy were against Costa Rica (who aren't a good team at all, no matter how you put a fancy underdog spin on it), and how much Croatia capitulated in the 2nd half v Mexico. I was also very confident that we would at least draw Uruguay but we put in a much flatter performance than v Italy, coincidence? I highly doubt it.

Teams who have played in Manaus are at a huge, huge disadvantage than others, there's no surprise Uruguay came through late against both England and Italy when you consider this.

To put a tiny bit more evidence to this when I was in Vegas a few weeks ago, I met a Brazilian guy from Manaus amazingly enough (I have him on Facebook if anyone needs evidence by PM, fwiw), he said that he couldn't believe they chose to hold matches there when it was announced a few years back, not just because of the match itself which would be hell, but the effects would last weeks afterwards. On the evidence of this World Cup so far, he's spot on.

Perhaps that's why they're not playing any knockout games there...
 
AliGupter said:
Unfortunately the sample size can be only 3, but perhaps this is part of the reason why the 2 football teams in Manaus are also rans compared to the rest of Brazil?

I was shocked by how poor Italy were against Costa Rica (who aren't a good team at all, no matter how you put a fancy underdog spin on it), and how much Croatia capitulated in the 2nd half v Mexico. I was also very confident that we would at least draw Uruguay but we put in a much flatter performance than v Italy, coincidence? I highly doubt it.

Teams who have played in Manaus are at a huge, huge disadvantage than others, there's no surprise Uruguay came through late against both England and Italy when you consider this.

To put a tiny bit more evidence to this when I was in Vegas a few weeks ago, I met a Brazilian guy from Manaus amazingly enough (I have him on Facebook if anyone needs evidence by PM, fwiw), he said that he couldn't believe they chose to hold matches there when it was announced a few years back, not just because of the match itself which would be hell, but the effects would last weeks afterwards. On the evidence of this World Cup so far, he's spot on.

Perhaps that's why they're not playing any knockout games there...
Click to expand...

I have rarely seen a team so legless after 60-65 minutes. I was telling my Dad that even though it was 0-0 then the bet was gone as physically the Croats were finished.
 
Looking at the 538 group qualifying projections it seems that they rate Ghana's chances of advancing better than the 11/2 available. This Manaus thing has given me the reason to pull the trigger now.

It might be a statistical blip but I'm not so sure. Factoring in that Germany and Ghana have had a day's xtra rest and Portugal would need to win a by a big margin to qualify Ghana just might be able to sneak this one.
 
To play devil's advocate:

- Cameroon were fairly shite against Mexico in Natal before they went near Manaus - remember Mexico had two good goals disallowed and Hernandez missed a tap in late on.

- With England/Italy its harder to separate an effect as it was their first game; but if there was a hangover, you might have expected Uruguay to win more easily against Italy yesterday. As it was, they needed an Italy sending off and a bit of a fluke goal (in off his shoulder!) to win.

- Croatia are more interesting. Played well against Brazil in the opener and smashed Cameroon up in Manaus, but the Brazil / Mexico draw meant they had to beat Mexico to stay in the competition. I think Mexico were the better team on the night and deserved the win. Once they scored, Croatia had to go for it and were picked off mercilessly for the second. Croatia actually had their best chances after that, having a shot cleared off the line before Mexico's third and then scoring a late consolation. Croatia's biggest problem? An incredibly poor goalkeeper.

There may be an effect, but has it been enough to change any results so far? The only post-Manaus performance that would really raise an eyebrow for me was Italy's against Costa Rica.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
To play devil's advocate:

- Cameroon were fairly shite against Mexico in Natal before they went near Manaus - remember Mexico had two good goals disallowed and Hernandez missed a tap in late on.

- With England/Italy its harder to separate an effect as it was their first game; but if there was a hangover, you might have expected Uruguay to win more easily against Italy yesterday. As it was, they needed an Italy sending off and a bit of a fluke goal (in off his shoulder!) to win.

- Croatia are more interesting. Played well against Brazil in the opener and smashed Cameroon up in Manaus, but the Brazil / Mexico draw meant they had to beat Mexico to stay in the competition. I think Mexico were the better team on the night and deserved the win. Once they scored, Croatia had to go for it and were picked off mercilessly for the second. Croatia actually had their best chances after that, having a shot cleared off the line before Mexico's third and then scoring a late consolation. Croatia's biggest problem? An incredibly poor goalkeeper.

There may be an effect, but has it been enough to change any results so far? The only post-Manaus performance that would really raise an eyebrow for me was Italy's against Costa Rica.
Click to expand...

All fair points. Makes me even more curious about how tomorrow plays out.
 
AliGupter said:
I think you'll change your opinion on that when you see how poor Uruguay are v Colombia, at least.
Click to expand...

Uruguay aren't great anyway (qualified 5th without Brazil). They are also certain to be without the Chipmunk which makes them rank bad.
Colombia @ 23/20 in 90 mins look an absolute maxbet banker.
 
tiggers1972 said:
Uruguay aren't great anyway (qualified 5th without Brazil). They are also certain to be without the Chipmunk which makes them rank bad.
Colombia @ 23/20 in 90 mins look an absolute maxbet banker.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, to be honest I think they're absolutely terrible and ripe for the picking, wouldn't be surprised if Colombia, who look top class, beat them by several.

On a level playing field I think Uruguay would have finished bottom of that group, they had every advantage and still only scraped through with a lot of luck.
 
Did anyone watch all of the Columbia-Japan match last night?

I ask because I only saw snippets, turning over during interruptions in the Greece match. I backed the Greece/Japan double (approx 15/1) in the belief both were better than 3/1 shots on the night. I was wondering if Japan played well or if they were just beaten by a better side, or what.

I intend to try and catch up on the match online but I'd like to hear the opinions of anyone who saw it for themselves.
 
I was watching both games at the same time, from what I saw, Colombia started off slowly, first 20mins or so I'll give to Japan, then Colombia took control after they got a penalty on the counter. Japan's goal was against the run of play, but 2nd half Colombia just sat back and seemingly picked them off at will. Different to how they were the first couple of matches (much more on the front foot), which is a good thing.
 
Back
Top