World Cup Group D

Hamm said:
It wasn't a sitter, it would have been if he was taller. He may have jumped a trifle early but otherwise not sure what he could have done.

Gerrard actually played well I thought, his passes gave England momentum.

Henderson is a coward, as put by BTB - everytime he got the ball he tried to give the responsibility to do something with it to someone else. I hate watching players like that. Suarez takes responsibility, Henderson avoids it.

Rooney played well.

Sterling was dreadful but that can happen. Didn't get into any rhythm.

Welbeck being in the team (let alone the squad) continued to amaze me. He is pointless. He doesn't score (I genuinely prefer Bendtner to him as a backup 'striker'). He doesn't create. He couldn't do his defensive duties v Italy. He runs around like a headless chicken, but not even as much as people think.

It's selections like him and Henderson that cost England. I would add Jagielka but I don't know, Terry aside, who would have been better. The cupboard is bare at centre half.
Click to expand...

Agree with all that . God i would have lived to seen jt yesterday

Barkley showed good awareness when he came on. On the relatively little ive seen i prefer him to sterling

Wellbeck had the vision of stevie wonder and the finishing ability of a custard pie thrower.
 
Sorry, but this is horsesh*t! I love Flamini, but he can't pass. It doesn't matter what statistics say, he is a very average player with the ball, it is without it he makes a difference.

What stats measure character? :D
 
Gamla Stan said:
In baseball, teams are now pretty much put together entirely by stats and geeks. Football will be the same in 30 years, racing in 200.

Brandon Rodgers has started it at Liverpool.

http://www.ftbpro.com/posts/jon.eastwood.1/735812/has-moneyball-worked-at-liverpool
Click to expand...

Baseball is different though isn't it? Everything that happens in a baseball game effects the outcome of the match whereas most of what happens on a football field is meaningless. It will take quite a few years for analytics to have a major impact on football although I'm sure every team uses them now.
 
Last edited:
Agree . What nonsense how on earth are stats going to also predict the blend between key players? Englands cricket team became inert by obsessive statisucal control under flower whilst australia bloomed under proper man management and gut feel under lehman .
 
SlimChance said:
Baseball is different though isn't it? Everything that happens in a baseball game effects the outcome of the match whereas most of what happens on a football field is meaningless. It will take quite a few years for analytics to have a major impact on football although I'm sure every team uses them now.
Click to expand...

Every big team already has scouts and stats analysts (see book I put up on other thread). To be honest, I'm delighted that folk like Clive think the way they do and are so vociferous in their opposition against stats. Just convinces me to get into betting on football even more.

How do you think Tony Bloom is a multi-millionaire employing hundreds of graduates in London to number crunch every match across the world? Betting on the best man managers and gut feel?!
 
Was he the one that suggested that mexico were 33/1 to beat brazil?

If you think that man management is not an absolute key factor in foorball (as in life) then you really have no understanding of the game at all. Stick to play station

it feels like stating the bleeding obvious but football is a confidence game with creativity. That is not driven by a spreadsheet
 
Hamm said:
Sorry, but this is horsesh*t! I love Flamini, but he can't pass. It doesn't matter what statistics say, he is a very average player with the ball, it is without it he makes a difference.

What stats measure character? :D
Click to expand...

Frank Sinclair had best "pass completion" for chelsea in the 90s and was by far the worst passer

those that watch the game will get that immediately

Those that watch spreadsheets would put him central midfield as the main creative force
 
I would have had Mexico 100/1 to beat Brazil, I would have won too.

Fancy England to qualify still and I've backed accordingly, an opinion is worth nothing unless you're prepared to back it up.
 
i'm pretty amazed that people backed England at that price..there are no easy games in the WC and they lack in spirit and grit...same as most England teams of the last 40 years

anyone betting them to qualify needs to be having a word with themselves

when it got to 8.0 clock last night i had the last two episodes of Breaking Bad to watch...i made the right choice

a question for anyone backing them to qualify...if they can't beat Uruguay why would you want them to go even further and get a pasting from one of the big hitters?

I would love to have the feeling we had when they were beating Holland in the Euros in the 90's...but taht is the only time i think i've had that great feeling about them since the 60's

they've nowt to come and best go early rather than later imo

sorry..been watching for a lot of years..nothing much changes
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i'm pretty amazed that people backed England at that price..there are no easy games in the WC and they lack in spirit and grit...same as most England teams of the last 40 years
Click to expand...

When you see the effort Uruguay and Chile put in the past 2 evenings, it doesn't say a lot about England, does it?

Spain you could forgive lacking the desire as they've done it all (again and again) - what have these England players done to be outfought?
 
Before the tournament started many were saying that England would struggle because they gave away possession too easily. My view was that it's what you do with the ball when you have it rather than how long you have it for. Against Italy we had 44% possession and managed 13 shots. Against Uruguay it was 63% possession and just 12 shots. Not good enough.
Gerrard did ok as the fulcrum for moving the ball across the field and put through a number of telling long balls but he simply isn't a defensive midfielder. Apart from his passing, his main strengths have always been the surging runs towards goal and the shots from outside the box. These days he hasn't the legs to do that and get back to defend. Sadly, I think it's time for him to go. I think he'll retire from international football after the tournament anyway but Hodgson should pre-empt that for Costa Rica. Replacing him with Lampard would simply be reproducing the problem so I would go for Jones and Milner to replace Gerrard and Henderson. Both have more pace and are better able to protect the full-backs. I like Baines and think he's been badly let down by the midfield cover but he's also not played well and I'd be inclined to give Shaw a go. Lallana is a more organised player than Welbeck and Barkley deserves a start, probably at the expense of Sterling who could be used as a sub for the last half hour or so as could Oxlade-Chamberlain if he's fit.
My team:
Hart
Johnson Cahill Jagielka Shaw
Milner Lallana Jones
Sturridge Rooney Barkley
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i'm pretty amazed that people backed England at that price..there are no easy games in the WC and they lack in spirit and grit...same as most England teams of the last 40 years

anyone betting them to qualify needs to be having a word with themselves

when it got to 8.0 clock last night i had the last two episodes of Breaking Bad to watch...i made the right choice

a question for anyone backing them to qualify...if they can't beat Uruguay why would you want them to go even further and get a pasting from one of the big hitters?

I would love to have the feeling we had when they were beating Holland in the Euros in the 90's...but taht is the only time i think i've had that great feeling about them since the 60's

they've nowt to come and best go early rather than later imo

sorry..been watching for a lot of years..nothing much changes
Click to expand...

I've got no horse in this England debate but this is the most realistic assessment on the state of English football on here. I've been watching this sport since the 1970 WC (what a world cup that was including England's heroic efforts) and they've been pretty much crap for most of the last 40 years, give or take an outlier, or to quote a prominent Englishman living in LA. "England is a little dog that thinks its a big dog". One final in WC history and never been in a Euro final tells it own story. Also agree with the folks that think Gerrard had a good game last night. What were they watching I thought he was a limp wrist of a player out there. They have some good young talent coming thru but as soon as the PL starts up again nobody will give a flying **** about the national team. The obsession with the PL is simply overwhelming.

Roberto Martinez is doing stellar commentary for ESPN and when asked what could be done he said the first place is to start with a manager strong enough to tell the FA that a 6 year contract is his starting point and then commence at point zero ratcheting expectations down to where they should be namely that of an average team trying to scale upward and see how it goes from there. I'm quite confident that won't happen because of the little dog, big dog syndrome so England will just continue to play a little dog role in international football.

Contrast that to Germany where the national team takes top billing and where they also went thru a stretch of great misery from the late 90's to 2006. Klinsmann came along and with the ruthlessness for which he is known he initiated the reforms necessary, against at times fierce opposition to people within the federation and the club hierarchies and brought the whole thing full circle with a new attacking style of football with fresh young talent charming a nation of eternal pessimists in 2006. Since then they have again been a major force with football that is entertaining and successful and look as good a candidate as any to go all the way.

It can be done.
 
Full marks to Costa Rica for doing a Chile. It isn't hard to spot what the teams have in common.

I don't think I've seen any 'top' European team play as badly. Just not in it at all, a bit like Brazil the night Ronaldo flipped.
 
Well with all due respect to ec I thought it was rubbish

For a start the 1970 was generally regarded as stronger than 66 and gave the great brazil team their hardest game. The early 80s side with Keegan was pretty decent but the 1990 side certainly excelled themselves. 96 was a genuinely good side and would almost certainly ave won that final if the penalties had gone in

To say they lack "spirit and grit" is garbage. They tried and didn't shirk tackles (bar one player)Gerard limp wristed? Silly remark

The debate should be why we have a forward who is continually over praised for his "effort" but plays as if he is wondering what those white posts are doing there and has about as much awareness of what's going on around him as a trapped miner

They gave their all but they are a mix of the very young and inexperienced and players perhaps a little past their best. Uruguay last night were no mugs at all.

Too much is made of systems and 10 year plans and so on. Sometimes it's just the fortune to have a certain group of talented players who click under a decent manager (1996) . But to make that happen you have to develop players with technique and vision and we still lack that. The Dutch do it time after time too many of our players are still needing one too many touches and lack a natural awareness of space

Maybe that's because at all levels we bang on about "spirit and grit" a little too much
 
Last edited:
Clive

when England players are prepared to run through walls for their country we might get a bit further

it can't be skill levels surely..are Costa Rica more skillful than us??...how have they got further than us..i'd watch them..then tell me how they differ from us

its not bollix Clive..because if it isn't lack of passion effort grit...whatever you want to call it...then what is it?

We have the toughest league in Europe don't we?...so it can't be that
 
Back
Top