England v Panama

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Surely that is enough for Southgate now. Loyalty is commendable, but you can't keep playing Sterling because you expect him to start playing well, for ever. Enough already. And by the way, Loftus-Cheek was awful and so was Henderson. Against a good team we'll get hammered as he provides no shield at all in midfield. We're playing 7 attackers and 3 defenders and we won't cope against Spain, Brazil or Germany. It'll be touch and go against Columbia.
 
SpursDisciple said:
Surely that is enough for Southgate now. Loyalty is commendable, but you can't keep playing Sterling because you expect him to start playing well, for ever. Enough already. And by the way, Loftus-Cheek was awful and so was Henderson. Against a good team we'll get hammered as he provides no shield at all in midfield. We're playing 7 attackers and 3 defenders and we won't cope against Spain, Brazil or Germany. It'll be touch and go against Columbia.
Click to expand...

You could argue that Belgium should be the last chance for
him to front up, regardless of what team line-up they select.

After that game, England will be facing opposition that have
least one of razor sharp attack / dominating CM / mean defence.
There will be no room for any passengers.
 
Against a half decent team, Southgate needs an extra defensive midfielder.
Dier for Sterling?
England would be best playing 3-4-2-1 if he insists on 3 centre backs.
Two holding midfielders with Alli and Lingard in front. Alli will run beyond Kane at times as he does for Spurs. Lingard will find space behind Kane.
We just need more than Henderson propping up midfield when the opposition get the ball. Decent passing teams who can keep the ball will just walk through midfield against such an attacking line up. It might have worked against Panama but Spain would have a field day against us.
 
Finally a few comments on TalkShite that Sterling might not actually be the messiah. Of course the decision is then that Rashford must play. Doesn't matter if he fits into Sterling's spot or not, he must play. It was even mentioned that since Rashford is at the same club as Lingard they'll have that familiarity (forgetting that they hardly ever play together). Most importantly forgetting that Sterling was probably playing more in Alli's position anyway, and that Alli and Kane are far more familiar with playing together than the ManU players... basically the clever pundits failed to point out that if Sterling wasn't playing then the obvious alternative is Alli. Loftus-C was OK but didn't set the world alight, and Henderson seems to be mainly there because "he's a bit more Liverpool" than Dier. And every time you say the word "Henderson" you must of course also say "range of passing" (goodness I'm fed up hearing that).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
SpursDisciple said:
Surely that is enough for Southgate now. Loyalty is commendable, but you can't keep playing Sterling because you expect him to start playing well, for ever. Enough already. And by the way, Loftus-Cheek was awful and so was Henderson. Against a good team we'll get hammered as he provides no shield at all in midfield. We're playing 7 attackers and 3 defenders and we won't cope against Spain, Brazil or Germany. It'll be touch and go against Columbia.
Click to expand...

That's the spirit! :D

I agree with you though. Several England players are playing too offensively and selfishly rather than holding their position and taking it seriously. Walker and Henderson, for example, need to stop spraying Hollywood passes in behind and concentrate on passes that get us forward without losing it. Too many players are searching for their first World Cup goal and bombing forward rather than waiting for the right opportunity to do so.

Defensively we're all over the place Stones(or whoever takes the central role) should be the one sweeping, not Walker, Young and Maguire need to start working together rather than ignoring each other and wondering why it keeps working out badly.

We've scored 8 but 2 of them were pens and the other 5 were from set-pieces. Our star striker might have 5 goals but we're still not finding him in good positions from open play. We've also conceded 2 and a lot more chances than you'd expect us to against Tunisia and Panama. I'm glad Southgate's not overpraising them because if we don't sort ourselves out we'll get humped by better sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Against a half decent team, Southgate needs an extra defensive midfielder.
Dier for Sterling?
England would be best playing 3-4-2-1 if he insists on 3 centre backs.
Two holding midfielders with Alli and Lingard in front. Alli will run beyond Kane at times as he does for Spurs. Lingard will find space behind Kane.
We just need more than Henderson propping up midfield when the opposition get the ball. Decent passing teams who can keep the ball will just walk through midfield against such an attacking line up. It might have worked against Panama but Spain would have a field day against us.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong, but hasn't Southgate said that the system stays regardless, 1 holding playing and Lingard and Alli playing deeper to give us more presence in midfield. If so it is Dier or Henderson (or Delph possibly) shielding the defence. 1 can do it and 1 can't (and the other I don't really know as I've only seen him play as left back recently).
Equally a left footed left back please (so Rose or Delph). Young is good on the ball, but his constant stopping and moving to his right foot just slows us down.
 
vimhawk said:
Finally a few comments on TalkShite that Sterling might not actually be the messiah. Of course the decision is then that Rashford must play. Doesn't matter if he fits into Sterling's spot or not, he must play. It was even mentioned that since Rashford is at the same club as Lingard they'll have that familiarity (forgetting that they hardly ever play together). Most importantly forgetting that Sterling was probably playing more in Alli's position anyway, and that Alli and Kane are far more familiar with playing together than the ManU players... basically the clever pundits failed to point out that if Sterling wasn't playing then the obvious alternative is Alli. Loftus-C was OK but didn't set the world alight, and Henderson seems to be mainly there because "he's a bit more Liverpool" than Dier.
Click to expand...

I don't think Sterling has been playing the Alli role, and that's the problem for me. He's been playing like a less good Vardy and it forces Kane to always drop back to find space. Rashford seems more willing to go out wide and drop deeper which would work better with Kane. I'd be well up for Alli playing further up but we simply don't have the midfield options behind him for that to work.
 
And the consensus seems to be, to come second and go into the bottom half of the draw. I'm not sure that's true. If we finish second we meet (probably) Mexico, then Spain or Croatia. Those teams look better than Germany/Brazil imo. Table below shows how I think it will pan out (depending on results this week) I've assumed we come first.. I guess by the time we play we'll know most of the places, but I strongly doubt there is much in it top or bottom half.

You must log in or register to see images
 
SpursDisciple said:
And the consensus seems to be, to come second and go into the bottom half of the draw. I'm not sure that's true. If we finish second we meet (probably) Mexico, then Spain or Croatia. Those teams look better than Germany/Brazil imo. Table below shows how I think it will pan out (depending on results this week) I've assumed we come first.. I guess by the time we play we'll know most of the places, but I strongly doubt there is much in it top or bottom half.

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
Brazil will look a lot better against Stones, Sterling and Henderson.
 
Hangover and sunburn... Worth it though after yesterday's result.

Early doors and the opposition have hardly been amazing but England do actually look like a good unit, been a while since I've looked at an England side and not really seen any massive weaknesses.

Harry ain't even been playing at 100% yet has 5 goals in 2 games. Trippier and Lingard been superb, that strike by Lingard gets better and better everytime you watch it while Trippier has been our standout player over the two games so far. Rumour has it that Cafu wears Trippier pyjamas to bed.

Be interesting to see how we line up for Belgium, go strong and try and keep winning mentality or rotate and not worry about result to keep key players fresh for the next round?
 
Did I hear right that the commentator in the first few minutes of the Panama game say that most experts couldn't decide if in the Tunisia match, Trippier or Henderson* was the man of the match?

Sorry, "range-of-passing"(TM) Henderson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: "Thanks for that Brian"
vimhawk said:
Did I hear right that the commentator in the first few minutes of the Panama game say that most experts couldn't decide if in the Tunisia match, Trippier or Henderson* was the man of the match?

Sorry, "range-of-passing"(TM) Henderson.
Click to expand...
You did. I'm still reeling from it. I don't think I watch with anti-Pool eyes (not ruling it out though) but I genuinely couldn't see what he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vimhawk
Reflection on yesterday...
The good - Tripps overall performance, especially his set pieces, the Lingard goal, the Harry Kane lesson in how to take a penalty and the improvement in Stones - at least in the opposition box.
The bad - the defensive confusion caused by such a poor opposition, the failure to give Dier at least 20 minutes of game time ahead of the Belgium game
The ugly - the media's ridiculous glorification of both Sterling and Henderson. (Mousers past and present....... )

2nd half was a disappointment (sorry, Spurf) and was a wasted opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: "Thanks for that Brian"
Just thought I'd mention that when I was looking at the main forum screen I noticed that Spur of the Moment posted "a moment ago". So I'm reflecting on the synergy of it all. Or maybe it's the serendipity of it all, my English is not the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spur of the Moment and SpursDisciple
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back