Football 18/19

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

As I have said I think England have played a great game in expectation management. 

Probably the two biggest factors in that, are the FA - in appointing Southgate and not the next Eriksson/Capello - and the general public’s reaction to that appointment. 

[pink_triangle]

33 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I know the World Cup is on, and we’re through to the Quarter Finals but I hadn’t realised the LTA were that desperate they were even letting in Welshmen....standards have dropped 

Is that why I have  never heard of a Welsh player gracing the courts, I had always assumed it due to lack of talent. Luckily after one day in the capital I have returned to my home in that Welsh city called Nottingham!

[TheGayTent]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Is that why I have  never heard of a Welsh player gracing the courts, I had always assumed it due to lack of talent. Luckily after one day in the capital I have returned to my home in that Welsh city called Nottingham!

Bloody foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs

[pink_triangle]

53 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think penalties can be a mental burden. There is of course an element of luck in them (one of Columbia's pens was awful but Pickford went the wrong way), but there is still a skill to take them, and the pressure will have been there.

I completely agree that the "golden generation" could have done better in tournaments with draws like this. I also think that in Euro 2004 England had the best team on paper.

I said it a few pages back, but I think your definition of "top 4 players" is stretching it. Delph/Jones/Stones/Lingard/Dier/Rashford/Young are very much squad players for their teams. Kane/Alli/Sterling/Henderson are IMO the only 4 key players for big teams England have. Maybe Trippier/Walker but there's not the same "huge player" status for these as there was for Lampard/Gerrard/Beckham/Scholes/Owen/Ferdinand/Campbell/Cashley/Neville/Terry/Rooney and the England team from that era. A bit-part England player of that time like Joe Cole would walk into this England team. I agree that expectations have been lowered beyond reason, but that's largely because the team isn't brimming with quality.

I don't think it's ridiculous to say that England are in the 2nd tier of teams on the world stage. So are Argentina and Portugal. The difference is England seem more organised than they do and have had better luck with the draw.

I agree  a second tier team and they may have had the best draw a second tier team have in history. Expectations should be high as England only need to beat one better team than them to win the World Cup, if Wales were in the same position I would believe they had a chance!

Im certainly not saying it’s a squad brimming with quality, but there are only a few of those and some have gone home. Looking at the draw at the start I felt England should get to the quarters and they have. I think you can only judge their strength in comparison to their opposition. If Russia beat Croatia then you could argue England’s route to the final will be beating 5 teams who between them didn’t have  player in their starting line up who would make England’s first 11, that’s an amazing piece of fortune.

 

[kaosmark2]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree  a second tier team and they may have had the best draw a second tier team have in history. Expectations should be high as England only need to beat one better team than them to win the World Cup, if Wales were in the same position I would believe they had a chance!

Im certainly not saying it’s a squad brimming with quality, but there are only a few of those and some have gone home. Looking at the draw at the start I felt England should get to the quarters and they have. I think you can only judge their strength in comparison to their opposition. If Russia beat Croatia then you could argue England’s route to the final will be beating 5 teams who between them didn’t have  player in their starting line up who would make England’s first 11, that’s an amazing piece of fortune.

I think Quintero, Cuadrado or Falcao would make England's first 11. Could certainly fit one in, maybe two. Otherwise I agree.

Edited July 4, 2018 by kaosmark2

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think Quintero, Cuadrado or Falcao would make England's first 11. Could certainly fit one in, maybe two. Otherwise I agree.

You could make a case, but there are no sure things. I think if England get to the World Cup final the main factor for this will be having better players than the teams they have played and not character, or what’s written in the stars.

[kaosmark2]

49 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

You could make a case, but there are no sure things. I think if England get to the World Cup final the main factor for this will be having better players than the teams they have played and not character, or what’s written in the stars.

Well Alli and Sterling rarely look particularly good for England, and I don't rate Lingard. Star players like Quintero/Cuadrado would IMO be an upgrade on them. 

I do agree that "character", "heart", "passion", etc. are overused ideas in England regarding football, as if somehow force of will takes a team through. Generally quality outs.

[pink_triangle]

21 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Well Alli and Sterling rarely look particularly good for England, and I don't rate Lingard. Star players like Quintero/Cuadrado would IMO be an upgrade on them. 

I do agree that "character", "heart", "passion", etc. are overused ideas in England regarding football, as if somehow force of will takes a team through. Generally quality outs.

You could make a case for or against those 2. Even if you accept both that’s a significant increase in talent that England have over Columbia. Even with a fully fit James Rodriguez I would still have made England favourites. I honestly believe the golden generation would have dispatched that team pretty comfortably.

[ThomThomDrum]

Wait a minute. Ye are sure that England are a better team than Croatia?? And that the only better teams left in the competition are in the other side of the draw? I would not be too sure... 

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Nothing has changed. 

They were a lottery then, they’re a lottery now, they were about character then, they’re about character now. As well many other things, bottle, temperament, gamesmanship, skill, etc etc 

I agree, however I’m not necessarily convinced that England losing shootouts was down to a particular problem. You throw a coin 4 times and you can get 4 heads despite it being a 50/50 chance.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

This team is very different to the ‘golden generation’, but that’s got diddly squat to do with progression in a World Cup. 

Indeed the 2002 squad (which was in the era of the ‘golden generation’) got to the quarter finals. If England lose against Sweden they will have gone out at the same stage to a far worse team. 

The current squad will still be very different to the ‘golden generation’. 

You could argue 2002 was just as good a path to World Cup glory, but the most difficult team was first instead of last. I agree they are different teams, but not convinced that there is a difference in “character “. I think if this team progresses furthrt than that team, the relative draws will be the main factor.

Edited July 4, 2018 by pink_triangle

[pink_triangle]

8 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Wait a minute. Ye are sure that England are a better team than Croatia?? And that the only better teams left in the competition are in the other side of the draw? I would not be too sure... 

I said if Russia beat Croatia. I think England v Croatia is a 50/50 (assuming no key injuries or suspensions) match. I don’t think one is better than the other.

[mjsell]

One of Colombia's centre backs (probably Sanchez) would make the England team. 

[mjsell]

39 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree, however I’m not necessarily convinced that England losing shootouts was down to a particular problem. You throw a coin 4 times and you can get 4 heads despite it being a 50/50 chance.

I stand by that almost every player that plays international football for a top nation has the technical ability to put a penalty in a place that is unsavable for any keeper - of which there were a couple in our shootout (and kane's against Panama as another prime example). However the other factors that have been mentioned (occasion, nerves, pressure, tiredness, mental strength, 'character') all play a contributing factor in stopping those players from putting their penalties out of reach (or not even on target).

Penalties is way more than luck. 

Side note: why is the ABBA system not being used? A system that was designed because of mathematical proof that penalties are more than just plain luck.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mjsell

[WS_Jack_III]

22 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Side note: why is the ABBA system not being used? A system that was designed because of mathematical proof that penalties are more than just plain luck.

Because it's a crap way to do a penalty shoot out. It's being dropped from the League cup next season too.

[kaosmark2]

41 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Side note: why is the ABBA system not being used? A system that was designed because of mathematical proof that penalties are more than just plain luck.

Because of the impact on viewing enjoyment.

Edited July 5, 2018 by kaosmark2

[mjsell]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I do agree that "character", "heart", "passion", etc. are overused ideas in England regarding football, as if somehow force of will takes a team through. Generally quality outs.

I think in one off games then those terms can be the deciding factor - but over the course of a tournament or season then they rarely do. What those terms really mean is 'work rate' and 'organisation'. Many teams have gone further in tournaments that expected because of it.

[kaosmark2]

24 minutes ago, mjsell said:

I think in one off games then those terms can be the deciding factor - but over the course of a tournament or season then they rarely do. What those terms really mean is 'work rate' and 'organisation'. Many teams have gone further in tournaments that expected because of it.

They absolutely can make a difference. I always loved Steven Taylor, as there were three separate occasions he stopped a goal by throwing his face in the way of the ball. That sort of thing very few players give you and it's great to see as a fan having a player care that much for your team. However if he had the qualities of a top defender instead (and could ever stay fit), he'd have had much more of an impact. But "passion" can provide memorable moments, so people overvalue them.

There's also times where a player's impact is put down to such traits, most notably Gerrard in Europe, when frankly it's more to do with a talented player dominating a game. His skill level let him do that. The "drive" or whatever is very much secondary.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Wait a minute. Ye are sure that England are a better team than Croatia?? And that the only better teams left in the competition are in the other side of the draw? I would not be too sure... 

well spotted.

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, mjsell said:

One of Colombia's centre backs (probably Sanchez) would make the England team. 

He would certainly be a contender, there are a few borderline cases where I could go either way. I could probably make an argument for between 0 and 2. The point still stands that man for man England have a better team than that Columbia one. Maybe they have great character or maybe they don’t, but a team beating a team with worse players is the norm rather than the exception.

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, mjsell said:

I think in one off games then those terms can be the deciding factor - but over the course of a tournament or season then they rarely do. What those terms really mean is 'work rate' and 'organisation'. Many teams have gone further in tournaments that expected because of it.

Greece probably the best example who defintely didn’t fluke it. My main issue is some of the lazy analysis. People are comparing this England team with previous ones and making assumptions on this England team (potentially) getting further due to particular traits. While I believe previous England teams could have progressed just as far with the same opposition.

[Dan R]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

He would certainly be a contender, there are a few borderline cases where I could go either way. I could probably make an argument for between 0 and 2. The point still stands that man for man England have a better team than that Columbia one. Maybe they have great character or maybe they don’t, but a team beating a team with worse players is the norm rather than the exception.

I'd say the teams are actually fairly even in teams of man-for-man quality. Each have a few good young centre backs, pretty workman midfield and a couple of star names up front. I agree that terms like character mean little in a lot of situation but for this generation of players the idea of a penalty shoot-out is synonymous with bad England results, so there is an extra mental pressure, on top of around 70% of that stadium seemingly supporting Colombia.

 

[pink_triangle]

57 minutes ago, Dan R said:

I'd say the teams are actually fairly even in teams of man-for-man quality. Each have a few good young centre backs, pretty workman midfield and a couple of star names up front. 

 

Look at the teams the Columbia players are playing for and compare it to England. Look at the wages and relative transfer value. Very few Columbia players would get into top 4 premiership squads. I think the English are massively underrating the quality of their own team compared to the opposition, as I have said expectation management has been played perfectly.

 

59 minutes ago, Dan R said:

I'd say the teams are actually fairly even in teams of man-for-man quality. Each have a few good young centre backs, pretty workman midfield and a couple of star names up front. I agree that terms like character mean little in a lot of situation but for this generation of players the idea of a penalty shoot-out is synonymous with bad England results, so there is an extra mental pressure, on top of around 70% of that stadium seemingly supporting Colombia.

 

 

[mjsell]

17 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Look at the wages and relative transfer value.

 

 

That's not a good argument 

[Dan R]

15 minutes ago, mjsell said:

That's not a good argument 

Yeah, that depends far more on the money in the league than the quality of the player, and English players go a a premium  due to homegrown players rules. Lots of the Colombia squad play for top clubs around Europe, and a few in top South American clubs which I have no idea about the quality of.