Jadon Sancho and Phil Foden. Once they both make it the senior squad we will have the missing pieces. Sterling - Terrified them in the first half last night. His pace was causing all sorts of problems. Subbing him for Rashford was a mistake. Lingard and Alli needed to be subbed. Henderson - Loathe to criticise anyone and this has nothing to do with him being an ex mackem, but sorry he is dog ****. he was hitting long balls most of the night and handing possession back to Croatia.
https://talksport.com/football/3991...gard-gareth-southgate-england-defeat-croatia/ I actually agree with Souness on this one!
I agree with him too - My post above. Lingaard and Del Alli were abysmal. Both should have been subbed. Now, I will get shot down for this, but for me, Alli is not as good as people make out.
Will he? He didn't seem to learn DURING the tournament. Interesting system, wrong personnel, but also a fairly poor talent pool. For me that's not the issue; for me the main problem is players are picked with no regard for their best positions. Has been our achilles heel since '96. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a professional, but seemed to me that Southgate wanted to play three CB's, yet only two of the three playing are ACTUALLY CB's. Walker at fault for the Croat goal as well, just not positionally aware enough. He then wants a pivot, rather than a true DM; Henderson is not that kind of player. He can't make things happen, he doesn't dictate the tempo of the game. Dier's even worse in that role. Shelvey is the right sort of player, but we'll stick with Henderson til he retires - because that's what England always does. Young was too off the pace, Rose should have had a bigger say. He also plays as wing back for Spurs. Young, by contrast, plays in a back four. Bertrand also better than Young. (Nothing wrong with Trippier our best player). Then we have the real problems - where are Alli and Lingard supposed to be playing? Neither are real CM's, they can't control the game. Alli plays off Kane at Spurs, Lingard - less often - plays off the strikers or in a front three for Man U. Both looked too lost, too often. Neither have the attitude or responsibility for CM. Sterling is - at best - a right wing forward. Not a very good one, but that's his role. He plays there for Man City, again part of a front 3. Kane is a spearhead, but was told - inexplicably - to keep working back in some bizarre attempt to let Sterling run in behind.....when we don't have anyone to make that pass!!!! I do hope he learns, but I'd bet we've just lurched from the Lampard/Gerrard failed era into some bizarre universe where Sterling is starting and Alli/Lingard are the new double act. I don't know why an England manager can't either go with a formation that suits the personnel (4-2-3-1/4-3-3) or pick the personnel if you want to stick to a formation (3-1-4-2). We're always in the middle ground of going with the bosses formation, then just picking the "best" players and shoving them in it.
Give over you WUM try debating without resorting to personal insults and I'll take you seriously... Who else shone for you? See how its done?
I think Kane put away the pens well, won lots of free-kicks, but was knackered by the end of the tournament. I think it would be harsh not to say he did well in this championships on the basis that he was crawling around the pitch in the last two games with no energy in an attacking midfield role... Aside from that, I think Lingard was the best of the midfielders. Henderson covered a lot of miles, but was poor when we had possession. His passing was often misplaced, he left gaps and for 60 mins vs Croatia he just booted it up-field. Modric was the difference, but we had our version (albeit not as good) sat at home waxing his head. Sterling posed questions in behind, but fell over when well placed, which sums up his career to be honest.
So you claim we’ve got to the semi final for the first time in 30 years with only 3 players in credit? Howay I can’t take it seriously. Stones was excellent. Maguire outstanding. Pickford excellent. Walker good. Young average. Trippier outstanding. Henderson excellent. Alli average. Lingard excellent (the lads workrate was something else). Sterling good. Kane very good (I think he may be still top scorer). The subs didn’t produce much. Dier was good and bad. RLC did pretty well. Rashford disappointing. Vardy disappointing. The manager had an outstanding tournament. Basically the manager, coaching staff and every single person involved with that trip comes out with enormous credit. If you can’t see that you’re mad as a *****ose.
Nah there is when people start being stupid. If you don’t tell them they’ll continue to be stupid. That’s not fair on them.
Haha no skin off my nose, just trying to make him feel bad. Agree with all the above but don't think they particularly proved to be better than I thought they'd be before the tournament. Kanes 6 goals were 3 pens, 2 headers (as many as Stones) and a deflection he knew nothing about. He's known for being a workhorse though at Spuds and I think he probably ran himself into the ground. I'd give him a 7/10 Henderson - you got spot on 6/10 for the tourney Sterling 3 or 4/10
Perhaps people are thinking we had world beating players heading into this tournament and were expecting to win.
We beat Panama, Tunisia and Sweden. Drew with Columbia. Beaten by Belgium and Croatia. It’s not amazing by any stretch.
The arrogance of an England fan in a nutshell. Would that be Colombia who finished 4th in a South American section which is widely considered the toughest by far due to quality and the fact it’s an 18 game league? The same Colombia only edged out in the QF by home Brazil in 2014 (comfortably doing Uruguay in the round of 16). Sweden who dumped the Dutch (semi finalist in 2014) out. Sweden who topped the group containing current world champions Germany, being very unfortunate to lose to them 2-1. Sweden who also beat perennial contenders Italy to be here. Sweden who beat finalists France on route to getting here and gave them a hell of a game in Paris being edged out 2-1. Belgium doesn’t count it was a nothing game. Tunisia and Panama you’d expect to beat but previous England teams wouldn’t have and have lost similar games or drew them. Good wins whichever way it’s assessed. A 6-1 over any team is a fabulous result at a World Cup. Croatia have their greatest ever team and quite rightly have made the final and go there with a good chance. They are a top top team with a smattering of players playing at Europe’s top sides and the latter stages of the CL. They have arguably the best midfielder in world football at present. Honestly I don’t understand why people think we’ve had it easy. There are very few bad sides and in Sweden, Colombia, Croatia we had a tough set of games to reach a final. We only fell just short and if Kane squares the ball to Sterling or Lingard finds the net it’s a different game. If we are not happy to have been in it to the point of fine margins here or there, I don’t know who the **** we think we are.
So...we beat Panama, Tunisia and Sweden. Drew with Columbia. Beaten by Belgium and Croatia. It’s not amazing by any stretch.
Oh I agree, Panama, Sweden and Tunisia (the only teams we beat in 90 minutes) are world class sides with mega-stars teaming through the side... It took the greatest football I have ever seen on the world stage to edge past them. How many Panamanian, Swedish, Tunisian or Columbian players made it past the groups stages of the champions league? I'd say we would expect to give them a game like, it's not an unbelievable achievement.
