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

Great finish, we deserved that.

for crying out loud

going to a back 4 changed everything and England bossed that second half. Got the equaliser, worked the dutch keeper hard, 2 mins to go and they *modded* gave the ball away in front of the box again and watched the ball sail into the back of the net.... again!

really irritating. England did everything right in that half and then threw it away again

England were entirely to blame for both the goals they conceded

talk about cutting your own throat.

However the performance ought to put to bed the 3 CB's and 2 wing backs approach used recently. They were miles better when they reverted to a back 4. Pelova dominated the first half, but from the moment Carter went to left back, Pelova became invisible and ended up being substituted. The front 3 of Hemp, Russo and Toone, who barely touched the ball in the first half, were suddenly in the game. Hemp is better out wide than in the middle, England took much more control of the middle and suddenly it was the dutch who were being pulled this way and that.

with a few minutes to go the draw looked certain, but only England were going to win it and then... bang... a sloppy pass and the dutch were in in front of goal...... I'm cross and I have no emoticon to express it

Saw the second hall. Did indeed look to be “one that was thrown away”. Thought England were going to get the winner sooner or later - give the Dutch keeper full marks for making sure they didn’t ! But then that careless error at the end ( loose and casual passes actually a bit of a feature of the game : how many times did they pass back to Earps when there seemed no need ? A couple of times it seemed to nearly create an opportunity for their opponents)…I can see why you were annoyed , DFM.

very frustrating

England stuck with a back four tonight, with Charles in at LB. They battered belgium to death in the first half with wave after wave of attacks, got a bit static in the second half and for a while I had a feeling that Belgium might mug us the way the NL did, but not tonight.

23 shots... 1 goal. They passed up umpteen chances to add to their early first goal, doing practically everything possible to find a way to not score. Russo missed the best chance volleying over right in front of goal with the keeper completely beaten. As it was, the Belgium keeper had to make a number of regulation saves whilst, despite Belgium having very little possession, Earps had to make several great saves. Belgium defended deep, but counterattacked with pace and were good on their set pieces

Charles did okay. She was doing better than okay for an hour, but got caught out a few times and made a few sloppy passes later in the game. Park was a handful when she came on late in the game. Kirby got half an hour after a long lay off

the reverse fixture is on Tuesday

Not really sure how England just lost that game, but the female Belgian commentator is going apesh*t like they have won the World Cup, so I wont begrudge it....

well it was a frustrating game in many ways. Like they did against the Dutch, England rather cut their own throat.

In a carbon copy of Friday, Belgium dropped deep, defended for their lives and then hit England hard on the counter and it worked even better for them in Leuven than it did in Leicester. England, for their part, controlled possession, but were once more far too slow in their attacks, so when Belgium did suddenly burst forward in numbers, England gave them lots of time to get back in position. The penetrating balls behind the defence were regularly over-hit and rolled out of play. The attackers kept getting caught off side in their attempts to get behind the back line and eventually England were throwing so many players into the attack to try and find a way through the defence that they kept leaving themselves exposed at the back (as they did on Friday, but which they were made to pay for last night). I lost count of the number of times England fluffed their chances at scoring... Russo more than anyone. It's been over a year since Russo was given the number 9 shirt and I remain unconvinced.

It was actually a rollercoaster first half. England went behind to a free kick on the edge of box after Kelly, under lots of pressure, went to ground looking for the foul and did what every footballer seems to do these days and grabbed the ball to make the ref blow the whistle. The ref duly obliged and awarded the kick for handball, which was brilliantly taken, lifted over the wall into the bottom corner with Earps on the other side. Then there was the clash of heads and a long delay, after which England became a different team. They pierced the defence twice in a few minutes and were suddenly well on top and looking threatening with every attack, but then they gave the ball away in the Belgium half and one pass later.... one pass.... the striker was in behind and slotting it cooly past Earps.

Second half looked to be a stalemate as England failed repeatedly to get in behind and squandered chances. Belgium snuffed out every half chance that England managed to create and forced them to recycle instead of shoot, but then right at the end, as England got caught out again on the counter, they gave away the penalty for handball that handed Belgium the win. Now qualification for the Olympics looks very, very difficult. They have to beat the Netherlands comfortably and make sure they beat Scotland, whilst hoping that Belgium don't do something similar.

is this the qualifying matches for the Olympics?

GarlicJam wrote:is this the qualifying matches for the Olympics?

In a way yes, because the group winner qualifies. But the Nations League is also a tournament in itself

The winners of each of the 4 Nations league groups progress to the semi finals, but only the finalists qualify for the Olympics next year, unless France reach the final in which case the winner of the 3rd/4th play off will progress

England are the team nominated to represent GB in this qualification process, but were a miracle to happen (it won't) and were England to qualify for Paris '24 (they won't), then players from all the home nations would be eligible for selection to the GB squad

England have kind of run out of ideas at exactly the wrong time. They only narrowly beat Scotland at home, shouldn't have lost to NL, narrowly beat Belgium at home, then shouldn't have lost the reverse fixture last night. Barring one half, they've pretty much dominated possession in the 4 games they've played, but have struggled to find the back of the net in all those games, whilst giving away possession in really dangerous areas at the other end and been punished

The side seems to have been in a state of flux since winning the Euros last year. Long term injuries to key players have hurt them more than the retirements of other players. They now no longer seem able to find a system that suits the players they have left. In the absence of Williamson they've been exposed a bit at the back because of the attacking nature of their full backs, so half way through the WC they shifted to a back 3 to compensate for that, which got them to the final as the other big guns fell by the wayside en route, but without really looking that comfortable in the new formation. They started off this campaign with the same system, but it rather unravelled in the first half against NL and they reverted to a back four which immediately improved them (apart from the mistake which cost them the game). Since then they've stuck with a back four, but the old deficiencies from the WC that prompted the formation change have immediately resurfaced.

What happens in the next 2 games is anyone's guess, but they need to decide on a formation and then back that up by picking the players that make that system work. With the players they are using atm they either play a back four and get exposed on the counter when the FB's bomb forward, or they play with 3 CBs and lose control of the centre of midfield and both those problems are hurting England as things stand.

With a back 3, Hemp and Russo have been operating up front, which supports Russo but reduces Hemp's impact because she's better playing out wide. Walsh sits in front of the CB's, because that's her best role, leaving 3 players in the middle of the park, one of whom is always going out wide to support one FB or the other leaving the other two always playing against a 4 man midfield, so possession is hard to come by when England don't have the ball, passing options are reduced when they do and this helps the better teams make life really hard for England

With a back 4, they play a front 3 by bringing in Kelly opposite Hemp. This worked with White in the Euro's, but Russo gets exposed as the lone striker, because holding the ball up waiting for support is not one of her strengths. This draws the likes of Stanway or Toone further forward to support her, the FB's keep bombing forward and Walsh has to move up the pitch to carry out her playmaker role. Suddenly the only people between Earps and 70 yards forward are the 2 CB's who end up on the halfway line to provide passing options when the ball is being recycled. This leaves them constantly vulnerable to the ball played in behind and a speedy counter attack whenever England lose possession

Allied to that, the goals have more or less dried up as teams sit back to defend and then break. A returning Mead or James, or Kirby when she's back up to full fitness might help solve the goals problem, but right now it's a real issue, because a plethora of chances are being squandered every match, piling the pressure on England and ensuring that even teams at a lower level than the Dutch are managing to keep themselves in the game while they wait for England to give the ball away and let them in

Plenty for SW to ponder

sussexpob wrote:

GarlicJam wrote:is this the qualifying matches for the Olympics?

In a way yes, because the group winner qualifies. But the Nations League is also a tournament in itself

right. We've been having a 4 team "tournament" in Aus the past couple of weeks, which is also the qualifying for the next stage on the road to Paris.

Aus, Taiwan, Philippines and Iran. Aus won their games (in order listed) 3, 8, and 2 to nil.

I don't think hey have qualified for the Olympics yet, though.

GarlicJam wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

GarlicJam wrote:is this the qualifying matches for the Olympics?

In a way yes, because the group winner qualifies. But the Nations League is also a tournament in itself

right. We've been having a 4 team "tournament" in Aus the past couple of weeks, which is also the qualifying for the next stage on the road to Paris.

Aus, Taiwan, Philippines and Iran. Aus won their games (in order listed) 3, 8, and 2 to nil.

I don't think hey have qualified for the Olympics yet, though.

Yeah , think it is similar to that European Nations League thing : now have to go on and play other group winners - probably Japan or one of the Koreas.