... stopped reading once I saw the ominous phrase "playing Cahill" ... humiliating return home after the group stage it is then...
And another one is picked as a central defender (Walker) in a 3. I'm not sure we have enough full backs.
We've looked far better with 3 at the back. Shame Cahill and Jones are there tbh. Both are ****e imo. Looking forward I'd have Stones, Maguire and Walker as a back 3 and have TAA (or another) and Rose (or another) as the wing backs. Whoever ends up playing I'm all for 3 at the back with this squad at International level. You can only play 4-4-2 if you have 2 amazing CB's - we don't so 3-5-2 or 3-5-1-1 is definitely our best option.
Realistically I’d say that there’s about an 85% chance the tournament is win by one of - Germany, Spain, Brazil or France. They are just that far ahead in terms of quality and depth of quality. England probably is in the very next tier of contenders with maybe Belgium, Argentina and Portugal and the likes. But historically, there’s something more at play for England. Possibly even psychological because I’ve never seen a “big” team fail more internationally. Here is a fact I dug up - in the entire history of tournament play, England have never, ever even once, beaten a team of substance in a knockout game in away from home (1966 and 1996), not even one time. Here is the list- 3-0 v Paraguay, 1986 World Cup 1-0 v Belgium AET, 1990 World Cup 3-2 v Cameroon AET, 1990 World Cup 3-0 v Denmark, 2002 World Cup 1-0 v Ecuador, 2006 World Cup That’s it. Belgium in 1990 was not an A level national side.
funny you say that UTD, con-seeded 28 goals which was second best to ££££ with 27. Liverpool let in an embarrassing 38
It's not madness, City have a plethora of full backs for the same reason. Shall we get Lampard and Ashley Cole back and go to a 442 so that you don't feel uncomfortable at trying something different on a football pitch?
That's why we have 4 full backs at Spurs, not saying they are world beaters, that's not the debate. The point is they are stacked up because theoretically they going to be up and down the pitch clocking up the mileage more than any other position. Rotate for a rest. Southgate getting knocked because it's fashionable to knock an England manager...but I think he's doing orite
Yes that's clearly what I'm after. Each to their own, but I think 6 full backs (regardless of their secondary positions) is madness and an error in building a squad. I'm all for modern attacking full backs I just think 6 at the expense of taking creativity to release them and our attacking pace is silly. 4 is sufficient in a tournament. I'm sure Man City have 5 full backs by the way, in order to cover an entire season. Zinchenko and Mendy would be lucky to have more than 15 appearances between them. They also do remember to pick some creative players to unleash those full backs and the likes of Sterling and Sane too. As a Spurs fan I'm sure you can attest to the importance of Eriksen to the likes of Alli and Kane. I'm sure we won't be left wondering why Sterling, Alli look a pale shadow of their club form when we get to the tournament...
Bertrand not being picked is criminal. He hasn't had a great season, but his team has struggled. Cahill also going is hilarious. The guy should be no where near the England team, and I say that as a supporter of the club he captains. He is past his best, and his best, bar the odd world class performance in big games, was never that great to begin with. He is a piss poor John Terry-lite, much the same way Henderson is a piss poor Gerrard-lite. Bar their forward line, there is a serious lack of quality in that squad. England will scrape through their group, then they will get knocked out in the first knock out round.
Actually I think if England get through the group their last 16 clash is winnable too. It's the quarters where they will bump into a heavyweight.
That's true but we may aswell not enter then. Point is we should be good enough to go toe to toe with whoever we get in the last 16. I don't expect as much if we end up with one of the big boys. We are not big boys, yes we won it in 66 but we are not big boys...so long as the fans remember that, it should be ok.
