Jump to content
A Load of Squit

*** The Official 2022 World Cup Thread ***

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, All the Germans said:

I don't blame Kane. I don't think blazing it over is bottling it. Doing a Southgate in '96 is bottling it. Pretty much the only thing sensible Michael Owen has ever said is, don't "hit the target" go for the corners. From that distance, the keeper should have no chance. Any penalty that is saved is a terrible penalty, if you smash it for a corner and miss the goal, it's bad, but not as bad as letting the 'keeper save it.

(PS, I don't particularly rate Kane. He wouldn't be anywhere near the guaranteed starter for me).

Surely credit has to be given to a keeper who saves it though, ac that’s his job isn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Just wondering from those who want Southgate out who they would put in his place?

 

Dean Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

That's not really much evidence in the grand scheme of things, it's a one-off game. By the same logic any underdog that wins has better players but I think we've seen the basis now. I'd say previous careers, career trajectory, trophies won and fees paid (with the exception of the inevitable premium on domestic players within domestic markets) are greater evidence over time. Or, to use a boxing phrase, styles make fights.

Re. the bit in bold, you just admitted the defence is not up to it at the elite levels of the game, and whilst England has a bumper crop of attacking midfielders with potential at the highest levels of club football, we're talking about a France side with Mbappe, Griesmann, and to a lesser extent Dembele - a proven set of attacking superstars who've done plenty at the highest levels of club football AND won a World Cup.

France didn't create that much either, their vaunted talent notwithstanding, as in Walker England had a natural right-sided defender with enough pace and nous to largely nullify Mbappe's explosive pace and acceleration, so more went through Griezmann instead. And they deserved to win because they took their chances when they came.

I agree with most of that. I should say I am a neutral as far as England and France are concerned, and I watch virtually no football. Probably the last time I saw England play was the last World Cup. And for example I think last night was the first time I'd ever see Griezmann play. I actually clapped late on in the second half because he misplaced a pass, just to show he was human.

As I said earlier, for long period when in possession England looked the better side. And they seemed to have more technical ability than some teams from the past, plus patience, and the ability to go up a gear. But you cannot separate out parts of the team and say if only the defence was better, or if only we had a pure goalscorer.

The bottom line is that France scored two goals in open play while England scored one penalty and missed another.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

No. You struggle with this clearly. IN YOUR OPINION it is ridiculous. It is YOUR OPINION that football fans that feel the current is not good enough should be the people who choose a successor? 

I can interpret your clearly crap analogy how I want as I am the person who you have labelled the ‘child’, so my interpretation as the child is completely fair. I don’t like Southgate as England manager. This is not a question of me buying a better car, because if that car refused to start or broke down regularly you wouldn’t not replace it whether you knew about cars or not, you’d use the freely available information in the internet to research and then give a few a test drive before you commit. Another crap analogy. Can you please also give me your complete plan for ‘a better world’, because if you want to know what a better England look like it’s one that wins a major tournament. I think you need to give up on the analogies, they don’t work. 

Nothing is more childish than someone so unable to accept that there are completely reasonable views that differ from their view. I am able to accept I might be wrong that Southgate is not the man to take us to glory, which again, is so far proven and all that international football is ultimately about. But you are unable to accept that there may be a better manager we could get that would take us to that glory. That’s childish. No crap analogy needed. You also didn’t pay attention to my suggestions. I said I’d take Klopp or Guardiola. Infinitely better managers than Southgate. If you want to see some stats to back that up I can probably rustle some up, but it just needs to be that they’ve won something once to be better than GS, which I feel they may have 😂

Sorry, but you really are an idiot at this point. Of course this my opinion. As already stated several times, I've stressed that and underlined where you claim fact when it isn't.

You continue to push flawed arguments.

Including trying to tell me how my analogy works, which is hilarious.

I'll put it another way. You are just whinging for whingings sake.

Your comparisons are contradictory and largely flimsey. Not just on this thread but others to.

We are all able to have opinions, and are free to form them. Just as we are free to point out flaws in them.

So I will maintain that suggesting there are better managers out there but refusing to name any is a childish view to hold. I'm not asking you to personally appoint one, no one is.

And this thread already has people suggesting realistic alternatives. Strange then that you appear to be unable and unwilling to engage in such a harmless exchange.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We clearly have an abundance of excellent attacking players and have a defence that many people are worried about. 

Was that the reason Southgate played with a back four, two defensive midfielders with a box to box midfielder and two of the three attackers who have played further back, Foden in midfield and Saka as a wing back. 

Everything about Southgate is defensive minded, even though our strength is that excellent array of attacking players.

Even Harry Kane has to defend well and rarely has the support as he does in club football to be even more effective in international football. He has no central support at all, no number 10. Nobody playing as an English Son Heung-Min. No Maddison but continued support for Henderon. Perhaps Maddison is not defensive enough.

I almost feel as sorry for Kane playing for Southgate as I did for Wolfie playing for Hughton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, chicken said:

Odd one. So you want a manager based on the idea that they could get us to beat teams we're not expected to beat? 

Exactly. Beggars belief.

We haven't beaten a team we were not expected to beat in a WC knockout game since at least 1966.

Here are the teams we have beaten in knockouts at the World Cup since then:

(twenty year gap)

1986 Paraguay

1990 Belgium, Cameroon

(twelve year gap)

2002 Denmark

2006 Ecuador

(twelve year gap)

2018 Colombia (on pens), Sweden

2022 Senegal

That's it. Eight knockout wins in 56 years. Not one against an elite team. Not one.

Southgate and Bobby Robson won 6 out of those 8 games. The idea that Southgate is the problem is completely and utterly ridiculous. What Southgate has done is return us to a level of expected achievement after 12 years (at least, depends how you think Sven did...) of under-achievement.

I would argue that last night was a step forward from Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021. In both those games, the longer the game went on, the less we looked like winning it: the better side asserted their superiority. That wasn't true last night. We went toe-to-toe with a good French side (the idea that they're 'moderate' is just laughable) and on another night would have won the game. That's not to say we 'deserved' to win - on balance I think we fell just short of that. But France - who will win the tournament in my view - will for sure know that they were in one hell of a game.

It might be time for Southgate to go. He's done three tournaments and it must be very difficult to keep going back to the well. But he has done a fantastic job (not just as first-team coach, but in his previous work at the FA) in making us contenders again. We'll be in the conversation at the next two tournaments at least, after years of failure. And he has moulded an England team that the country can be proud of - a group of young players, committed to their country, rather than the entitled, selfish teams we've had in the past. And he's done it with a dignity in stark contrast to his critics' hysteria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Exactly. Beggars belief.

We haven't beaten a team we were not expected to beat in a WC knockout game since at least 1966.

Here are the teams we have beaten in knockouts at the World Cup since then:

(twenty year gap)

1986 Paraguay

1990 Belgium, Cameroon

(twelve year gap)

2002 Denmark

2006 Ecuador

(twelve year gap)

2018 Colombia (on pens), Sweden

2022 Senegal

That's it. Eight knockout wins in 56 years. Not one against an elite team. Not one.

Southgate and Bobby Robson won 6 out of those 8 games. The idea that Southgate is the problem is completely and utterly ridiculous. What Southgate has done is return us to a level of expected achievement after 12 years (at least, depends how you think Sven did...) of under-achievement.

I would argue that last night was a step forward from Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021. In both those games, the longer the game went on, the less we looked like winning it: the better side asserted their superiority. That wasn't true last night. We went toe-to-toe with a good French side (the idea that they're 'moderate' is just laughable) and on another night would have won the game. That's not to say we 'deserved' to win - on balance I think we fell just short of that. But France - who will win the tournament in my view - will for sure know that they were in one hell of a game.

It might be time for Southgate to go. He's done three tournaments and it must be very difficult to keep going back to the well. But he has done a fantastic job (not just as first-team coach, but in his previous work at the FA) in making us contenders again. We'll be in the conversation at the next two tournaments at least, after years of failure. And he has moulded an England team that the country can be proud of - a group of young players, committed to their country, rather than the entitled, selfish teams we've had in the past. And he's done it with a dignity in stark contrast to his critics' hysteria.

 

...and yet Morocco can somehow raise their game to knock out Spain and Portugal , aswell as beat Belgium in the group stage

How do you think they did that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most suggestions have been club managers, many experts say the club to international manager transition is one not made by many.  The most likely club manager at present would be Cooper at Nottingham Forest but I'm sure he would require a lot of convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Exactly. Beggars belief.

We haven't beaten a team we were not expected to beat in a WC knockout game since at least 1966.

Here are the teams we have beaten in knockouts at the World Cup since then:

(twenty year gap)

1986 Paraguay

1990 Belgium, Cameroon

(twelve year gap)

2002 Denmark

2006 Ecuador

(twelve year gap)

2018 Colombia (on pens), Sweden

2022 Senegal

That's it. Eight knockout wins in 56 years. Not one against an elite team. Not one.

Southgate and Bobby Robson won 6 out of those 8 games. The idea that Southgate is the problem is completely and utterly ridiculous. What Southgate has done is return us to a level of expected achievement after 12 years (at least, depends how you think Sven did...) of under-achievement.

I would argue that last night was a step forward from Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021. In both those games, the longer the game went on, the less we looked like winning it: the better side asserted their superiority. That wasn't true last night. We went toe-to-toe with a good French side (the idea that they're 'moderate' is just laughable) and on another night would have won the game. That's not to say we 'deserved' to win - on balance I think we fell just short of that. But France - who will win the tournament in my view - will for sure know that they were in one hell of a game.

It might be time for Southgate to go. He's done three tournaments and it must be very difficult to keep going back to the well. But he has done a fantastic job (not just as first-team coach, but in his previous work at the FA) in making us contenders again. We'll be in the conversation at the next two tournaments at least, after years of failure. And he has moulded an England team that the country can be proud of - a group of young players, committed to their country, rather than the entitled, selfish teams we've had in the past. And he's done it with a dignity in stark contrast to his critics' hysteria.

 

Admirable use of statistics! Actually It is arguable that England didn’t beat anyone in 1966 they were expected not to beat, given home advantage. Argentina, Portugal and West Germany were all good sides but I wouldn’t say England went into those matches as underdogs. I may be biased because I was at the match but probably the best performance of the three was against Portugal.

On that basis, assuming your post-1966 stats and assessments are correct, then England have never beaten a team in a World Cup KO match they were not expected to beat, all the way back to their first appearance in 1950.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PurpleCanary said:

Admirable use of statistics! Actually It is arguable that England didn’t beat anyone in 1966 they were expected not to beat, given home advantage. Argentina, Portugal and West Germany were all good sides but I wouldn’t say England went into those matches as underdogs. I may be biased because I was at the match but probably the best performance of the three was against Portugal.

On that basis, assuming your post-1966 stats and assessments are correct, then England have never beaten a team in a World Cup KO match they were not expected to beat, all the way back to their first appearance in 1950.

1966 is before my time (Mexico 86 is the first WC I remember), so didn't want to claim anything about that. I think I remember someone saying that at the time of the 1966 final, England had never lost to (West) Germany. Is that right?

How wonderful to have been at a game in 1966. I was at England-Scotland in Euro 96 and will remember it forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chicken said:

Sorry, but you really are an idiot at this point. Of course this my opinion. As already stated several times, I've stressed that and underlined where you claim fact when it isn't.

You continue to push flawed arguments.

Including trying to tell me how my analogy works, which is hilarious.

I'll put it another way. You are just whinging for whingings sake.

Your comparisons are contradictory and largely flimsey. Not just on this thread but others to.

We are all able to have opinions, and are free to form them. Just as we are free to point out flaws in them.

So I will maintain that suggesting there are better managers out there but refusing to name any is a childish view to hold. I'm not asking you to personally appoint one, no one is.

And this thread already has people suggesting realistic alternatives. Strange then that you appear to be unable and unwilling to engage in such a harmless exchange.

 

 

 

 

Have I called you an idiot? No. Just you then. Harmless is when the opposing view isn’t called childish or that of an idiot. You’ve still managed to ignore two suggested managers I’ve mentioned, that’s twice. 
keep on trucking though, you feeling as though you’re in some way a superior amateur analyst, although self imposed is fine. But just so we are clear, I don’t agree with you on this topic. Happy to leave it there? Or do want to throw a bit more harmless abusive comment my way before you go? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Have I called you an idiot? No. Just you then. Harmless is when the opposing view isn’t called childish or that of an idiot. You’ve still managed to ignore two suggested managers I’ve mentioned, that’s twice. 
keep on trucking though, you feeling as though you’re in some way a superior amateur analyst, although self imposed is fine. But just so we are clear, I don’t agree with you on this topic. Happy to leave it there? Or do want to throw a bit more harmless abusive comment my way before you go? 

Lol. No.

I haven't called the opposing view childish or that of the idiot.

I have said that saying you want something to change, saying how crap that something is but refusing to suggest an alternative is. That isn't a "view".

As already said, pretty much everyone else on this thread who have been a hell of a lot more realistic and may be of the opinion that it is time for Southgate to go, have offered up ideas of who could be available as a good replacement - you'll note I have even agreed and said I liked some of those suggested. You claim to have named two managers - then why the hell did you refuse to name them? 

You still can't even engage with that because you think it's me asking you to actually appoint the next England manager, which is just bananas.

Above all else, you keep missing the freakin point. You've stated time and time again that this is the best team in the world right now. It isn't, not on paper and not on performances. Either as individuals or as a team. We're not there yet. France, on the other hand, are world champions and will be until someone else wins this tournament. They were favourites for the tournament, their players have more achievements to their names. More experience.

You want a manager that can consistently upset the odds. I laughed about that because those managers are as rare as hens teeth. So rare it should be easy to name them right? Yet none of the alternatives suggested in this thread are any guarantee of that either.

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called me an idiot. Avoiding that are we? It’s in black and white. 

Im not ignoring other suggestions, I’m responding to you. I too like some of the suggestions, they managed to make them without having to jibe at other people. Try it. It’s really quite a reasonable approach to take when you disagree with an opinion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

You called me an idiot. Avoiding that are we? It’s in black and white. 

Im not ignoring other suggestions, I’m responding to you. I too like some of the suggestions, they managed to make them without having to jibe at other people. Try it. It’s really quite a reasonable approach to take when you disagree with an opinion 

No. Haven't avoided it at all. In fact, I just reiterated it.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the loose opinion that people may feel it's time for a new England manager. I didn't call you an idiot or childish for holding that view, nor holding the incredibly flawed view that England is vastly superior to the current World Cup holders.

I called you stupid and said it was childish for anyone to say they wanted another manager and refusing to name an alternative. And I stand by that. Especially as you made it sound like I was asking you to be the actual person to appoint them.

As you have seen, there are literal dozens of people happy to engage with that, from either side of the in-out discussion.

So tell me, who are the two suggestions I have missed? If you had done so already and I had missed them, why would you not say them again? 

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klopp and Guardiola. I said them twice. They are not available, they’d cost lots more than we would pay and they’d be about as interested as they would in watching paint dry, but that’s the ideal. Howe would be good, great with getting a team to click and attack well. If we are talking realistic, Poch is out of work and has coached at a high level, worked with Kane and produced the results without reaching the fullest of heights. 

Im not stupid, I stand by my view that you had zero need to call me as such because I believe our squad was better than France’s squad. The only true way to determine that was when they play each other, France won but my opinion is that they were there for the taking and we didn’t take them, despite outplaying them. I put this down to lack of attacking intent where it mattered over the 90. I think we had the players to apply more pressure than we did and I think that Southgate’s set up prevented this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Exactly. Beggars belief.

We haven't beaten a team we were not expected to beat in a WC knockout game since at least 1966.

Here are the teams we have beaten in knockouts at the World Cup since then:

(twenty year gap)

1986 Paraguay

1990 Belgium, Cameroon

(twelve year gap)

2002 Denmark

2006 Ecuador

(twelve year gap)

2018 Colombia (on pens), Sweden

2022 Senegal

That's it. Eight knockout wins in 56 years. Not one against an elite team. Not one.

Southgate and Bobby Robson won 6 out of those 8 games. The idea that Southgate is the problem is completely and utterly ridiculous. What Southgate has done is return us to a level of expected achievement after 12 years (at least, depends how you think Sven did...) of under-achievement.

I would argue that last night was a step forward from Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021. In both those games, the longer the game went on, the less we looked like winning it: the better side asserted their superiority. That wasn't true last night. We went toe-to-toe with a good French side (the idea that they're 'moderate' is just laughable) and on another night would have won the game. That's not to say we 'deserved' to win - on balance I think we fell just short of that. But France - who will win the tournament in my view - will for sure know that they were in one hell of a game.

It might be time for Southgate to go. He's done three tournaments and it must be very difficult to keep going back to the well. But he has done a fantastic job (not just as first-team coach, but in his previous work at the FA) in making us contenders again. We'll be in the conversation at the next two tournaments at least, after years of failure. And he has moulded an England team that the country can be proud of - a group of young players, committed to their country, rather than the entitled, selfish teams we've had in the past. And he's done it with a dignity in stark contrast to his critics' hysteria.

 

A very good post. Can I add in the 1982 World Cup, although it was a different format (two group stages) and although England did not lose a game and only conceded one goal in five games, they failed to beat Spain (the hosts) and West Germany (two 0-0s) in the second group stage.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Klopp and Guardiola. I said them twice. They are not available, they’d cost lots more than we would pay and they’d be about as interested as they would in watching paint dry, but that’s the ideal. Howe would be good, great with getting a team to click and attack well. If we are talking realistic, Poch is out of work and has coached at a high level, worked with Kane and produced the results without reaching the fullest of heights. 

Im not stupid, I stand by my view that you had zero need to call me as such because I believe our squad was better than France’s squad. The only true way to determine that was when they play each other, France won but my opinion is that they were there for the taking and we didn’t take them, despite outplaying them. I put this down to lack of attacking intent where it mattered over the 90. I think we had the players to apply more pressure than we did and I think that Southgate’s set up prevented this. 

I'm going to ignore the second bit because in your exchange with Gunny it became very clear you didn't actually know a lot about the France team and you continue to downplay that they are reigning world champions. We also didn't outplay them for 90mins. Most sources of reporting said that we played better in the 2nd half but they were better in the first. You also argued Saka was creating all sorts of problems, but despite that he couldn't come up with an assist. How do we look better than a team if we didn't attack well? France held their positions and closed down threats quickly on the edge of the area - something we failed to do for their first goal, which included Bellingham and Rice.

Anyway, onto managers. I don't get the love in for Howe. If Southgate hasn't got the credentials to be the England manager, Howe's aren't greatly better. At Middlesbrough Southgate was charged with overseeing a youthful side and a low budget to try and make them competitive. He actually did relatively well in that regard. He was then taken into the England set up. The one thing Southgate has undeniably done well, is get this squad together and to play and act as a team. Bellingham is a prime example of this, going to his captain after missing the penalty and supporting him.

Howe has been a "chequebook" manager too. If you look at the spending at Bournemouth I think it's possible to see that he doesn't always get things to click. For me, he needs more time at Newcastle to prove that he can get his side together and to perform on a consistent basis at the top end of the league. He could be one for the future, but I just think him being younger and fresh faced has made him the media's love in candidate.

When you compare him to Klopp and Guardiola, he doesn't come remotely close. Poch on the other hand, is a level or two above Howe IMHO. And is the one candidate I have thought could really take on the job and do well both in bringing in and working with youth, so continuing on with Southagate's legacy if you will, and take the team to another level of competing.

I think Klopp would be more likely than Guardiola. I can see both as international managers at some point. I think realistically, there is more money in top level club football. Guardiola won't whilst he has his set up around him at Man City, and they have basically bought his Barcelona set up. Klopp on the other hand, appears to be struggling a little to get this transitioning Liverpool team to fire... and you never know, if he becomes available.

No need to rush though right? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t have to ignore my view in France based on your view I have assessed it differently to you and Gunny. I’m happy with my assessment, I watched it same as you did and as we know, no team outplays another for 90 minutes. Saka was outstanding, best player on the pitch. Didn’t create an assist but then I’ve said my view is that’s down to Southgate’s tactics. I know as much as anyone with an internet connection about the France team, so you don’t need to attempt to patronise me by saying Gunny showed me to be lacking. As I’ve said, the only way to base a squad vs squad comparison is in the occasion they are playing one another. Trophies are win in various multinational teams where the variables are huge, world champions France are not the same team 4 years on with different personnel and 4 years more in the clock. The here and now is the only effective measure. You disagree, that’s fine. 

Managers that get the team together are great. Southgate does this. Managers that win things are great too, Southgate doesn’t do this. Plenty of managers can get a team to like each other, fewer can get them winning trophies. Howe may be a chequebook manager in theory but I believe he has taken Newcastle further and faster than was expected at this stage in the project. Newcastle look excellent and their team is not littered with superstars, they have just enough to be weapons. In many ways this is like international sides at the top level. I’d love Klopp. I’d take Poch with optimism. But England being managed by an Argentine or a German comes with its own set of controversial potential.

we may not be in a rush, but with the relative small number of games internationally and two year time frame, it makes sense while there won’t be any for a while to thank Gareth for his service and bring in a new era who can get a full two years to try it their way. It might not work, but it might. 
 

Edit- so many ‘I’ for ‘o’ typos I cba to change 

Edited by SwearyCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

1966 is before my time (Mexico 86 is the first WC I remember), so didn't want to claim anything about that. I think I remember someone saying that at the time of the 1966 final, England had never lost to (West) Germany. Is that right?

How wonderful to have been at a game in 1966. I was at England-Scotland in Euro 96 and will remember it forever.

Robert, that may be correct about England never previously having lost to Germany/West Germany. There was certainly a famous 6-3 win in Berlin in 1938. The irony is that in the thirties England had one of the best teams in the world, as evidenced by that result, but ignored the three world cups held in that decade.

The converse of England not beating good sides in World Cup KO games is that they tend not to lose to poorer teams but do indeed lose to good sides. Germany/West Germany three times, Brazil twice, Argentina twice and once to Uruguary (when they were the holders), Portugal, Croatia and France.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

A very good post. Can I add in the 1982 World Cup, although it was a different format (two group stages) and although England did not lose a game and only conceded one goal in five games, they failed to beat Spain (the hosts) and West Germany (two 0-0s) in the second group stage.......

Cheers. I left Spain 82 out because of the lack of knockout games, though I think I'm right in saying that the West Germany 0-0 was a sort-of knockout game in that they had to win to go through. And they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The converse of England not beating good sides in World Cup KO games is that they tend not to lose to poorer teams but do indeed lose to good sides. Germany/West Germany three times, Brazil twice, Argentina twice and once to Uruguay (when they were the holders), Portugal, Croatia and France.

Yes, exactly. The worst thing you can reasonably say about Southgate is that he has not bucked that trend. In my view he came closer last night than anyone since Robson's team that lost to West Germany in the Italia 90 semi-final.

The other thing we used to do is make really heavy weather of getting out of the group (1986, 1990, 1998) - or indeed not get out of it at all (2014). Under Southgate we've breezed through the group stages (which is partly why we've had the 'lucky' draws that people talk about). For instance, you could say we were unlucky to lose to Argentina in 1998 (Beckham's red, Campbell's disallowed goal). But we were only playing them so early in the tournament because we'd made a mess of the group stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Cheers. I left Spain 82 out because of the lack of knockout games, though I think I'm right in saying that the West Germany 0-0 was a sort-of knockout game in that they had to win to go through. And they didn't.

It was the other way round, we needed to beat Spain but didn't. Despite being the hosts Spain were not the force they are now, they lost to Northern Ireland and drew with Honduras, scraping through on goals scored from the first group stage........

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

It was the other way round, we needed to beat Spain but didn't. Despite being the hosts Spain were not the force they are now, they lost to Northern Ireland and drew with Honduras, scraping through on goals scored from the first group stage........

thanks, much appreciated. Spain 82 was just before my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England footy need to take a look at the cricket side,  absolute belief being the final ingredient between being winners and losers at the very top level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SwearyCanary said:

Edit- so many ‘I’ for ‘o’ typos I cba to change

I’ve just realised what cba means 😁

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Van wink said:

England footy need to take a look at the cricket side,  absolute belief being the final ingredient between being winners and losers at the very top level.

There are a lot of nations across a variety of different sports which could learn from the attitude of the English cricket team.

Belief comes from winning and not being castigated when you fail, which unfortunately is never the case in football, especially when there is a degree of expectation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

There are a lot of nations across a variety of different sports which could learn from the attitude of the English cricket team.

Belief comes from winning and not being castigated when you fail, which unfortunately is never the case in football, especially when there is a degree of expectation.

I dont think "castigation" would be an issue for the cricket side even when/if they do lose, they have a really tight group which I suspect is totally insulated psychologically from any outside influences. I saw a list of teams the other day that England have actually beaten in big tournaments, not many top teams amongst them, maybe with this squad its more a question of psychology than ability, it seems to me they have all the quality they need, its more about the final ingredient which 100% belief that you will win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...