Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

it'll be here before we know it

Predictions for England?

Should be quite easy to get to the quarter finals looking at the draw.

ah... but that involves winning a KO match.... haven't done that for a very long time

Durhamfootman wrote:ah... but that involves winning a KO match.... haven't done that for a very long time

Will be against Senegal, Japan, Colombia or Poland. Should be doable.... though that would have been said before the famous Iceland game.

A quarter final tie against Brazil or Germany could await after that...

there is a reason why England haven't won a KO match for a very long time. Senegal, Columbia, Poland et al will doubtless see England as an easy last 16 tie

Southgate names Kane as captain. not much of a surprise, really... in such a young squad there aren't many other candidates and of those, most are not necessarily certain starters

Henderson only other option i guess?

maybe Cahill, but neither are guaranteed starters

If we have learnt one lesson from the Iceland game, its that Joe Hart was kidnapped at some stage between 2010-14 and replaced with a lookalike droid that couldnt catch a cold. You could make a case in Euro 2016 that we pretty much dominated every single game in terms of possession, territory and likeliness to score, but while we could take chances up top with Kane having a stinker, Joe Hart basically let in everything that came his way, and you could make a convincing case for blaming his mistakes on all the goals we conceded. Hart wont be there, so we instantly can consider ourselves to have a better chance.

If anything though, England need to look at that Iceland game carefully and heed the biggest lesson to be learnt from it..... that being, when a team is clearly only interested in shoving 11 men in their final third, then the laboured nonsense passing game trying to play the ball inside does not work. I remember Rashford coming on for 5 minutes at the end, and it changed the game.... a dynamic winger willing to attack a full back and take him on.

England are most likely going to get one tough match vs a Belgian team with bags of talent, which they will do well to draw but may ironically favour England with Belgium having no world class full backs and being more keen to take the game to us. After that, I expect replays of the Algeria, Slovakia, Russia, Iceland, Wales and USA games from the last decade.... ie, teams that will sit back and only attack if they have conceded. Interestingly, once again, we only conceded goals in all of those games with keeping errors (Rob Green threw Dempsey's terrible shot in his own net, remember).

England have to be prepared to mix up the play. If a team are sat back then try to get the wide men to stretch the play a bit and run at them with some pace. If that doesnt work, then they need to be prepared to play Howitzer football. Time and time again you see teams so defensive against England their full backs retreat to areas either just inside the box, or within say 20 yards of their own goal line. If teams are going to play that tight, you need a moment of indiscipline and some quality on the deck to play through them. If that doesnt work then after 60-70 minutes, with so much space to cross in the box, you literally want to be working the ball into wide areas and having 5 central players attacking the crosses.

England never mix it up though. If a team wants to play one way and defend well, you have to be prepared to roll through a few different attacking fronts and make them defend different situations. Most international teams like Tunisia and Panama are not going to be teams who will cope with that well.

sussexpob wrote: Joe Hart basically let in everything that came his way, and you could make a convincing case for blaming his mistakes on all the goals we conceded.

I remember doing just that at the time

I'm feeling more bullish about England than at any other time since probably 2002.

Do I think they'll do well? No, obviously, but I'm fairly hopeful they might not be as bad as they normally are. Getting out of the groups will represent a major improvement, imo.

I like the focus on youth and pace, I like the 3 man defence, Kane might even do very well and if he does well, so might England. It's the middle of the park that bothers me. Southgate's midfield generals Dier and Henderson seem incapable of playing the ball forward.... no slide rule passes, no pinpoint accurate long balls that might give the speed merchants up front something to run onto..... so it'll be short, simple passes and passes that go backwards, making everything very slow and tedious when teams park the bus (which some will do). And that is a shame because there are enough legs up front to stretch and terrorise middle of the road defences.

In isolation I get why he wouldn't gamble on Wilshire, he's always injured and has had very little game time. In isolation I get why he wouldn't gamble on Shelvey's disciplinary record, but it seems to me that if Wilshire isn't in the squad, then taking Shelvey as a last 20 min sub capable of opening defences, should England be struggling to find a way through, isn't that much of a gamble, really. The lack of a player that can produce defence splitting passes is one of the things that makes England look so pedestrian when compared to the better teams. I rather think Southgate is missing a trick.

It seems the Sun is planning to make Sterling there number 1 fall guy for the world cup. Already going after him regarding a tattoo he has on his leg. The righteous are out in force and its really sickening.

Is it a coincidence that Sterling is the chosen one for Rupert and his alt right friends?

Not a new thing....him and the DM always after him

It is a bit silly for him to have had a gun tattooed on his leg, but his explanation and story uncover a powerful message.

sussexpob wrote:It is a bit silly for him to have had a gun tattooed on his leg, but his explanation and story uncover a powerful message.

That they do. But I'm sure that will get lost in all of the righteousness.