The Big Vital Lincoln City World Cup 2018 Thread! | Page 26 | Vital Football

The Big Vital Lincoln City World Cup 2018 Thread!

Snats said:
Interesting situation if they win it. Difficult to sack a World Cup winning manager but surely they have to take Zidane while he's available.
Click to expand...
True.

I don't get the impression the French fans like Deschamps. It seems they're aware of what a brilliant squad they have, and are likely to have for the next 3 or 4 tournaments, and want them to play like it rather than the cautious approach he generally adopts.
 
Mixed feelings re England's WC campaign. Got easier half of the draw combined with the lack of Holland, Italy. That said, you can only beat what's in front of you. They squeezed past Tunisia with a goal in injury time, had a much better performance against Panama, then a meaningless loss to Belgium with the reserves. Rnd of 16 they had their first real test against Colombia and were fought well against a dirty, play-acting team of cheats and managed to overcome the penalty hoodoo. Sweden was a highlight as they completely controlled that game and deserved to win. The semi against Croatia was agame of two halves. They should have been at least 2 up by half time and could have gone on to win it. The fact that Croatia came back as strongly as they did, when they had played two successive games with ET, leads me to question either England's fitness or their commitment to winning, or their tactics. Perhaps they were just too arrogant and expected to win. For me, the game of the WC was the PO game against Belgium. It really showed the difference between a top world-class side and a team of young pretenders. Belgium played superbly as a team and having three players like Hazard, Lukaku and DeBruyne (player of the WC for me) makes all the difference. They attacked with pace, no fear and plenty of skill and detemination to take the England defence on - their movement was superb. England were far too slow and predictable in their build-up and more often went sideways or backwards. They seemed to lack purpose or imagination in the final third. Belgium retained the ball then broke quickly and directly with great purpose and skill and determination. On the whole, Southgtae deserves to carry on as I think he's building something worthwhile, but he needs to review the competition and the top teams to see what makes them top teams and try and inject that into a young England side. I can see why Sterling is in the side as he creates havoc in opposition defences, but he could do more damage if the players around him moved better and got into more dangerous positions. John Stones - the one player I had severe doubts about before the competition - actually played quite well I thought. He still has a weakness of being too hesitant to release the ball early when under pressure, which gives me the heebees, but overall he did OK both coming out of defence and at set-pieces. Still question his ability to defend against quality players, but he wasn't alone there so won't blame him too much. Onward and upward - it'll come home one day. Best for me was Harry Maguire - not seen him play before but thought he was excellent, both defensively and going forward. Attacked with purpose and determination. Really glad he scored.
 
PerthImp said:
...leads me to question either England's fitness or their commitment to winning, or their tactics. Perhaps they were just too arrogant and expected to win...
Click to expand...

I doubt it was the first two. It's tactics, but it goes deeper than that, it's something in the DNA of English football, something that has dogged successive England teams for generations.

England (in common with the other British sides, Ireland and the Scandinavians come to that) have never seemed able to adapt during matches. It isn't even a Northern vs Southern Europe thing as the Germans and Dutch have never had this problem.

Apart from, say, the coach making an actual, physical change of players, England teams have never looked capable of shifting from the game plan, even when it's patently not working.

I'm not sure how that is going to be changed. It must have to start at a very early age and England doesn't have many qualified coaches working with those age groups (does it?). Just willing dads, many of whom just want to play at a kind of real life FM2018.

I'm sure a good coach can improve the ball skills of youngsters and get them to understand positional play. How do you teach them to think for themselves? Do British coaches even want that?
 
Brendan Bradley said:
I doubt it was the first two. It's tactics, but it goes deeper than that, it's something in the DNA of English football, something that has dogged successive England teams for generations.

England (in common with the other British sides, Ireland and the Scandinavians come to that) have never seemed able to adapt during matches. It isn't even a Northern vs Southern Europe thing as the Germans and Dutch have never had this problem.

Apart from, say, the coach making an actual, physical change of players, England teams have never looked capable of shifting from the game plan, even when it's patently not working.

I'm not sure how that is going to be changed. It must have to start at a very early age and England doesn't have many qualified coaches working with those age groups (does it?). Just willing dads, many of whom just want to play at a kind of real life FM2018.

I'm sure a good coach can improve the ball skills of youngsters and get them to understand positional play. How do you teach them to think for themselves? Do British coaches even want that?
Click to expand...

Maybe Southgate understands this and, as he has worked through the levels and won tournaments with the youngsters, perhaps this is the next step once he has identified the players who can do it - who have the on-field leadership to change things around during the game. Isn't that what Bobby Moore used to do?
 
To my mind this team is been over hyped both Tunisia and Panama were poor teams and the only decent team we Beat were the Swedes, we seem to have the same issue we have had in previous tournaments as soon as we play a decent team we are beat.

There was a chasm in difference between us and Belgium our build up play was ponderous and slow while Belgium's passing was slick and fast.

With so many big teams under performing do not think we will have a better chance to reach a final.
 
German Imp said:
Played on Belgium TV tonight where the consensus of opinion was England did not have a good World Cup.

Click to expand...
Reasonably funny. But a little rich from a side that accused the French of anti-football when they couldnt beat them! Magnanimous in defeat!
Without doubt better than us, twice, but in the grand scale of things it really meant nothing.
And give me a pint of Pedigree instead of some wheat beer crap any day of the week :guiness:
 
Warrington Imp said:
To my mind this team is been over hyped both Tunisia and Panama were poor teams and the only decent team we Beat were the Swedes, we seem to have the same issue we have had in previous tournaments as soon as we play a decent team we are beat.

There was a chasm in difference between us and Belgium our build up play was ponderous and slow while Belgium's passing was slick and fast.

With so many big teams under performing do not think we will have a better chance to reach a final.
Click to expand...

I'm neutral about the England team but that's a bit harsh, considering it was considered a poor squad before it all started.

What's annoying to me has been incessant hype about the "young" England team as if somehow, magically there will be massive improvements in bang average players like Lingard (who will be going on 30 by the time the next World Cup comes around).

If you're picking on club form (as you should be) there is no way of knowing if England or anyone else will have a good side at the next Euro finals let alone the next World Cup. If keeping faith with young players till maturity was the key to success this squad would have had Walcott, Cleverley, Townsend in it. Maybe even Welbeck :)

Spain were Euro and WC champions when they got dumped in the group in Brazil. France (I think) did the same in 2002. The Germans went out similarly this time. The appallingly annoying Clive Tyldesley made a big point about saying how many previous third place winners had failed to qualify for the next WC.

A far more talented England 1990 side that (fortuitously) got to a semi final couldn't even qualify for the next World Cup. The team that failed for 1994 (allowing for some important injuries) contained Seaman, Adams, Walker, Pearce, Platt, Ince, Gascoigne, Barnes, Wright and Shearer.

So where are the players coming from as good as any of those? Assuming the current crop will get better, as so many are doing, is a fallacy.
 
The argument no Italians and Dutch made it easier for us doesn't hold for me when you consider that they must have been knocked out by someone. Italians were knocked out by a double header to Sweden. So you'd have to say Sweden are a good team.

3 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses going from 90 mins. Good World Cup for me, not excellent but 7.5/10. Our 3rd Best ever performance with not our 3rd best squad.

France rightly expected to win it this afternoon but I can't shrug off this feeling the Croatians may just sneak it.
 
For me England could have been finalists if we'd had a playmaker. If Kevin de Bruyne was actually Kevin Brown or if we had a young Paul Gascoigne we would have been much better.
 
Regarding England, it's perfectly possible to acknowledge that they had an easy run to the semi finals but still be proud of what they achieved. Two years ago we lost to Iceland, there's no such thing as an easy game at this level. I just hope people don't expect England to challenge every year now because it won't always be like this.
 
Snats said:
..there's no such thing as an easy game at this level....
Click to expand...

There is Snats. I loathe that term, which Hoddle uses about every ten minutes during his expert commentary of random words stitched haphazardly together. International football teams, in the main, being (like Sweden for example) Championship (or lower) standard with maybe an odd good player thrown in now and again.

Harry Kane is going to win the golden boot on the back of a hat-trick against Panama - two penalties and one he knew nothing about.

Coincidentally (or not) the runner up in that, Lukaku, got two against them.

Coincidentally (or not) neither did **** all in the knock out stages
 
Brendan Bradley said:
There is Snats. I loathe that term, which Hoddle uses about every ten minutes during his expert commentary of random words stitched haphazardly together. International football teams, in the main, being (like Sweden for example) Championship (or lower) standard with maybe an odd good player thrown in now and again.

Harry Kane is going to win the golden boot on the back of a hat-trick against Panama - two penalties and one he knew nothing about.

Coincidentally (or not) the runner up in that, Lukaku, got two against them.

Coincidentally (or not) neither did **** all in the knock out stages
Click to expand...

That Championship standard team finished top of a group containing Germany and Mexico. Sweden were no pushovers but we made them look that way.

You're right about Panama though.
 
Brendan Bradley said:
There is Snats. I loathe that term, which Hoddle uses about every ten minutes during his expert commentary of random words stitched haphazardly together. International football teams, in the main, being (like Sweden for example) Championship (or lower) standard with maybe an odd good player thrown in now and again.

Harry Kane is going to win the golden boot on the back of a hat-trick against Panama - two penalties and one he knew nothing about.

Coincidentally (or not) the runner up in that, Lukaku, got two against them.

Coincidentally (or not) neither did **** all in the knock out stages
Click to expand...
Lukaku did nothing in the knockout stages? Guess you must have missed th Brazil game where he was immense
 
I think ‘easy’ international games are far harder ham ‘easy’ club games due to the nature of international football. You don’t have pre season and months to develop tactics and bonds between the players
 
Snats said:
That Championship standard team finished top of a group containing Germany and Mexico. Sweden were no pushovers but we made them look that way.

You're right about Panama though.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, they're not easy to beat- though Germany did actually beat them - just, but I wouldn't expect anyone to find it easy to beat say Derby County either. I just don't expect Derby to win the FA Cup as a side of better quality would eventually put them out.
 
Did I just hear that Eden Hazard has nominated himelf 'Player of the Tournament"?? What an arrogant person. Think he needs to look within his own team for that person - DeBruyne - easily better and more influential than Hazard and pushed Belgium through some of those games, which is more than Hazard has done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.