What's new

World Cup Discussion Thread - Day 28 (11 July)

mrlilywhite

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2008
3,175
4,995
There will be many praising Southgate and to a degree they are right, but I felt his tactics invited pressure far too much. Having just Henderson sitting in the middle of the park, and not addressing the Croatia middle 3 was a mistake. Croatia's width in the second half was outrageous at times, and it seemed like it was beyond Gareth to negotiate a way forward for us from that. Losing to Belgium was a blessing, and all the cards landed the right way up for us to progress as far as we did.

Full credit to getting where we got to, we just weren't as good as we wanted to believe we were, but we could be, so I dare to be optimistic going forward. If we can find an England player that can create, a la Modric we will be gravy.
 

heelspurs

Le filet mignon est un bastion de rosbif
Jul 25, 2012
4,270
5,105
@heelspurs Direct threat irt Harry; pace, generally, which is why I wanted rashford and vardy on.
Yeah, that is a change I can agree with. I do believe taht Sterling was supposed to be providing that threat beforehand.

My issue is that without Harry providing control and distribution in the 10-ish area there is literally no other player to do it and therefore he was 'sacrificed'. So I agree with bringing on Vardy/rashford to terrorize the CBs but that's in lieu of putting Harry higher up.
 

thinktank

Hmmm...
Sep 28, 2004
45,893
68,893
i dont mean to be a party pooper but theres a reason for this. at that level you can win tournaments through pace and power hence why african teams have even won these tournaments in past. However, at the highest level, you need intelligent midfielders and i can only think of 2 players england have produced in past 28 years who were gazza and scholes.

You can only go so far with pace and power. you only need to look at spurs side and appreciate the influence of a clever player like eriksen. He is so slow physically but makes up mentally which can be said the same about modric and rakitic.
If we inserted pace when we should have, we would have won this particular game.
 

BC87X

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2012
71
342
That was painful to watch almost a carbon copy of the Columbia game with all the thuggish fouling and rough housing. The referee didn't have any balls to actually do anything, because he was scared not to be reported for favorism with the whole Turkey vs. Croatia nationalistic angle.

Also Sterling was horrendous that man shouldn't be anywhere neat the starting line up of England Rashford was significantly better in a much less time. Unfourtunatly Stones fell asleep at a crucial time with their 2nd I really think England had a good chance on penalties.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,365
20,241
Winks playing behind a more advanced Kane instead of Sterling in front of Kane playing too deep, and I believe we’d have won that inside the 90 minutes.

But for such an inexperienced team, they and we should be proud. And optimistic. They will only get better.
 

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Jun 13, 2008
21,894
32,582
Whisper it, but I still think from a deeper role Kane could have offered a bit more, maybe we even should have expected it. Some good hold up play and classy touches at times, but we never got 'run through brick walls' mode Kane - especially when he is captain. And his extra time efforts were rather limp. It would be interesting to know if he still isn't 100%.
 

thinktank

Hmmm...
Sep 28, 2004
45,893
68,893
Yeah, that is a change I can agree with. I do believe taht Sterling was supposed to be providing that threat beforehand.

My issue is that without Harry providing control and distribution in the 10-ish area there is literally no other player to do it and therefore he was 'sacrificed'. So I agree with bringing on Vardy/rashford to terrorize the CBs but that's in lieu of putting Harry higher up.
Ah well, we can't always agree, Heelsy. ;)
 

Johnny J

Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
Aug 18, 2012
18,576
49,039
Yeah, that is a change I can agree with. I do believe taht Sterling was supposed to be providing that threat beforehand.

My issue is that without Harry providing control and distribution in the 10-ish area there is literally no other player to do it and therefore he was 'sacrificed'. So I agree with bringing on Vardy/rashford to terrorize the CBs but that's in lieu of putting Harry higher up.
He should have taken different players rather than need to sacrifice the world's best CF.

Honestly we needed Shelve or Wilshere, much as I respectively dislike and loathe them.
 

SdB

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2013
1,367
1,878
Would love to see Kane's heat map for the last couple of games.

Southgate imo got it really wrong in allowing or asking Kane to play deep like he did.
Big assumption that it was Southgate.Kane has looked laboured in open play in most games, perhaps he was dropping deep to try to get in the game.
Whatever it was it doesn't work.
 

markiespurs

SC Supporter
Jul 9, 2008
11,899
15,576
There will be many praising Southgate and to a degree they are right, but I felt his tactics invited pressure far too much. Having just Henderson sitting in the middle of the park, and not addressing the Croatia middle 3 was a mistake. Croatia's width in the second half was outrageous at times, and it seemed like it was beyond Gareth to negotiate a way forward for us from that. Losing to Belgium was a blessing, and all the cards landed the right way up for us to progress as far as we did.

Full credit to getting where we got to, we just weren't as good as we wanted to believe we were, but we could be, so I dare to be optimistic going forward. If we can find an England player that can create, a la Modric we will be gravy.

Need to remember that this tournament has been a learning experiance for Southgate as well.
 
Top