Euro 2012

[pink_triangle]

I agree, but we should beat them on paper. That's the true test for Roy is beating the ones we should beat. A test I do hope he passes.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

So they are infinitely better than us? They aren't. They're a bit better, it's not a huge gulf like say Man City v Wolves or QPR.

And we have a poor back 5?

Hart- really good keeper. Best in PL last season.

Cole- Maybe best left back in the world.

Johnson- Fantastic again today, is brilliant consistently for Liverpool.

Terry- c**t but still solid.

Lescott- Perhaps the weakest in terms of ability but still was a regular in the league winning side.

It's when we move forward we lack the quality of other sides.

Edited June 11, 2012 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[fred quimby]

I saw it as that way because of what i've seen before. Used to happen regularly at Liverpool. There's a photo somewhere of it where we had tons of players in the box defending a normal attack.

As I said in the previous post, if I was convinced this approach was being used purely for this game I would have less worries. However I've seen an eerily similar deep negative approach used by Hodgson with teams including stars against teams that got relegated. Hopefully he's learnt from that and we won't see the same tactics v Ukraine/Sweden.

[strummer77]

They're much better than this current team. It's not really controversial to say this is the weakest England team in a long time, and that's possibly because they're under new management, and still haven't gelled completely, and due to absentees. I'd argue he's had to throw together a team from what's avaliable, and he's in a position where what's avaliable isn't great.

Edited June 11, 2012 by strummer77

[LondonTom]

Good game really, positives to take from it. I am slightly more optimistic about getting out the group, a good win against sweden and a draw against Ukraine I think it will end up.

In an ideal world we need Ukraine to beat France, not only to make France chasing but so they won't be as bothered as they would if they had to worry about getting through.

[strummer77]

Really good first round of games though. Was very impressed! Much better than the last world cup.

[pink_triangle]

I preferred the world cup first round of games but admittedly I'm a bit of a world cup buff and love seeing the greater variations of style from different continents even if there is a great gap between the best and worst. I have found the euros ok but to be honest have found a lot of the teams a bit samey being well organised but lacking in flair. I also think a lot of the better players look worn out after long seasons. It's definitely very competitive but to me the quality hasn't excelled but to be honest I don't think European football is at the moment. I hope things open up a bit in the second round of games.

[strummer77]

I preferred the world cup first round of games but admittedly I'm a bit of a world cup buff and love seeing the greater variations of style from different continents even if there is a great gap between the best and worst.

[kaosmark2]

I think it's a lot tighter a tournament. The WC is more entertaining, and has more variety of football on offer, but there's a tenseness that you get in the Euros that you don't in the WC. In the WC, you often get the likes of Argentina, Portugal having blistering performances against lesser teams in the 1st round of games, playing without restraint or caution and raising expectation. By contrast, the only big team to have won so far is Germany, in a 1-0. Croatia, Russia and Ukraine all have a huge advantage, and Holland will have to get at least 4 if not 6 points off Germany + Portugal to get through.

Interesting to see people writing off Sweden as well. I reckon they could cause England and France problems. A well organised, strong team with an unpredictable striker like Ibrahimovich? Dangerous, and could well end up getting 4 points.

[strummer77]

I think it's a lot tighter a tournament. The WC is more entertaining, and has more variety of football on offer, but there's a tenseness that you get in the Euros that you don't in the WC. In the WC, you often get the likes of Argentina, Portugal having blistering performances against lesser teams in the 1st round of games, playing without restraint or caution and raising expectation. By contrast, the only big team to have won so far is Germany, in a 1-0. Croatia, Russia and Ukraine all have a huge advantage, and Holland will have to get at least 4 if not 6 points off Germany + Portugal to get through.

[pink_triangle]

Interesting to see people writing off Sweden as well. I reckon they could cause England and France problems. A well organised, strong team with an unpredictable striker like Ibrahimovich? Dangerous, and could well end up getting 4 points.

[A-Rob]

Roy's England did a fantastic tactical performance, the team was compact at all times and defended really well.

The refree didn't help either a clear foul on Gerrard at the edge of the box and 2 or 3 wrong offside calls

On the other hand, 2 England weakness....we lack a clear goalscorer (like the likes of Shearer, Linker or Owen) but hopefully when Rooney comes in the third game he will deliver.

The other which is the most worrying is the lack of depth in the squad, I mean when you see the likes of Jordon Henderson going in for Parker it shows what a weak bench we have.

[the_hedge]

I didn't see much improvement to be honest with England getting deeper and deeper through out the match as per normal. It's very tiring in the middle playing the way Roy wants so expect teams who can hold on to the ball to wear England down. Same rules still apply, England need to learn to keep the ball for longer, been saying that since 1998.

Can't complain too much about the result though.

[kaosmark2]

Spot on there mate. It's like the Euros is a short sharp taster for the grander event of the World Cup. I like them both though even if I find the qualifying for both extremely tedious

[pink_triangle]

I agree with the hedge. Being organised is.not just about limiting the oppositions chances, its about getting a result while expending the.minimum possible energy. In such an intense tournament, its essential to conserve energy. I didn't see any evidence from England of that yesterday and the amount of chasing the ball takes its toll. It's hard to see the central midfield not being completely shot by game 4 should England advance, especially knowing they can't play the reserves in game 3.

I think some people are going a bit ott about this "great tactical performance". Maybe its the low expectations and overrating France but I don't see super tactics that are any different to what the rest of the teams are doing.

[strummer77]

England could of quite easily have walked away 2-1 winners last night. I don't buy as some are suggesting that it was a setup to get a draw. I think he did a good job of taking a weak side and setting them up to handle the French. They did that and with a bit more from the players we could of walked away with a win.

[eFestivals]

as Evra has said: England were like Chelsea.

[eFestivals]

Would that be Champions League winning Chelsea ?

yep - Champions League winning anti-football Chelsea.

[eFestivals]

If it won us Euro 2012 (which I don't think will happen) then I couldn't give a rats arse...

I could. Football is meant to be an entertaining sport for fans. Winning by any means is the antithesis of that.

[strummer77]

To be fair just because Chelsea won playing that style doesn't mean it is always the right style. It's a gamble but if it is one Roy is willing to take then fine. Luck favoured them (Messi and Robben's misses...) and they could easily have got destroyed had those gone in. Equally though I suppose it is a way of an average team winning the tournament so it has to be considered.

If we beat Sweden and Ukraine and go through, yesterday will prove to have been justified. If we don't, perhaps Roy will regret not taking on a slightly off-colour France a bit more. But I suppose it is such fine lines on which matches and reputations are won and lost in football.

[A-Rob]

yep - Champions League winning anti-football Chelsea.

Edited June 12, 2012 by A-Rob

[Steve P]

Football is a sport first and foremost. As a fan I want to see them win more than put on a good show. You may think differently but there are many fans around the world wouldn't be watching their football teams if what you said was universally true.

[Steve P]

Total rubbish... England win Euro 2012 by playing this type of football and you think 90,000 people wouldn't turn up at Wembley for the next game ?

On ya bike lad

I remember Arsenal being boring as hell and 1-0 to the title... Packed week in week out...

Sport is about winning. Winning puts bums on seats.

[LondonTom]

If it won us Euro 2012 (which I don't think will happen) then I couldn't give a rats arse...

Edited June 12, 2012 by LondonTom

[The Nal]

I think people are being a bit presumptuous here. There hasn't been a team whos really gone for it in the first match. I think England did well, a draw against a very good team. No Rooney either remember. The next two matches will be different. They'll go for a win in both of them I'm sure and it will be a full on (more) attacking 4-4-2 when Rooney is back.