Post World Cup Reflection

In fairness, with the way football is nowadays, parity can only be achieved by the so called 'stronger' teams playing worse. Look at Leicester winning the PL, that only happened because both Man City and Chelski massively underperformed, which is why it's a blip in the pan. One or the other might underperform, but both... That's rare (not saying Leicester didn't deserve to win the PL). So, if it requires the likes of Germany or Spain to play badly to achieve a sense of parity, then sorry, but long may the underperformance of stronger sides continue, and long may the underdog take a few out with them.

As for this world cup as a whole, I loved it because of some of the crazy results. Spain 3 Portugal 3, Belgium beating Brazil, Germany losing to South Korea and getting knocked out in the group stage, Russia knocking out Spain. It's been great. Yes, the stronger teams may have underperformed, but I feel that makes for a more interesting spetical. Rather than a procession to a semi-final of Germany, Brazil, Spain and... France I guess. Yawn fest.

As for England, I feel like we were overrated and lucky. Lucky to beat Tunisia, lucky to win on penalties (although about bloody time, maybe we can go into penalty shootouts with a hope of winning them) and lucky to get a 'weaker' draw in the knockout rounds. But the only game we played really well (except for Panama) was Sweden.

 

Which of course includes you as well.........Yes?

 

PL - we were lucky to beat Tunisia? We were unlucky not to be 5-1 up at half time!

 

The referring was extraordinary. It was like a throwback to the 1990s. I quite liked that. Çonfusing though - will it be like this in the prem or are we back to practically non contact again?

 

What is it that you are referring to, that was so extraordinary?

 

It would have to wouldn't it, really?

Guilty...

 

Perhaps, but no matter how many chances you have, if you don't take them then they count for nothing. The fact that we were able to finally take one in the 92nd minute of the game is pretty lucky.

 

The world cup was wonderful, one of the best I can remember.it looked brilliantly hosted by the Russians with great stadiums and good atmosphere. There seemed very little trouble and played in the spirit of the game.



As for England, they have given us hope.........................................................but we all know what that does.

 

It is over over and so I will give a more detailed breakdown of my thoughts.

1. Southgate. Southgate has achieved the impossible - he got the vultures of the English press to say good things (even about drab performances) and he seems to have meshed a tight unit in the squad. He has also brought in good coaches and papered over our lethargic playing style with excellent set pieces. He did, however, stick with out of form players out a misguided loyalty that he will need to learn to ignore. We were told no unfit players would be playing, but if Alli wasn't unfit then I don't know the definition. I will give him 8/10 for doing well with average players IN MIDFIELD. (segue to point 2)

2. Midfield. The weakest part of the team. They do not boss play against players of equal stature - and allow themselves to be bossed to easily. They play too slowly. Only Iran created fewer chances from open play than we did. I thought RLC tried to make things happen, but I think too many of the rest failed to try to grab the game by the scruff of the neck. We need a better holding mid amd a better creative player if we really want to move forward.

3. Defence is starting to look really excellent. I wasn't a massive fan of Walker at CB, but the other two aren't that quick and it was a good tactical move. Maguire is going to be immense for a long time. I think Stones has won me over too.

4. Width. Weird one this. Young was at best average but Trippier on the other side has to be in the team of the tournament. My new first pick for England. I do worry that this tactic does not work if you push the wing backs back - and Southgate needs to develop a plan b.

5. Attack. Kane is an enigma. If he really is getting tired out I am surprised. He hardly seems to do anyhting - which is fine when scoring, but not otherwise. Brilliant first half of tournament but poor later. A flat track bully. Sterling ran around, the very picture of desperation, but failed to actually achieve anything. I don't think he helps link atack and defence - would be better as an impact sub.

6. The future. Possibly bright, but we reminded me of Southampton at this tournament. Quite capable, like the ball, but class terrifies us and we move the ball too slowly. We have some brilliant young players and more coming through, but we need to be more confident with the ball and we need someone who can dominate from midfield. I would love to see a ball playing dm and a really creative attacking player appear.

 

Or good.

 

I think you have too high expectations and seek perfection. I also feel you have made your mind up on some and that’s it - no budging, yet others are given lee way.

One example: defence.

I thought our defenders did well, but in your review you almost glow about them (not something that is normally your style) yet we made two howlers defensively that cost us the semi-final. Two basic errors that if you commit those at the top level, you get knocked out. Roy Keane mentioned hat today. It has to stop.

Harry Kane took a beating for four games. To say he can’t be tired because “he hardly seeemd to do anything” is frankly ludicrous. Makes me wonder if you really understand what he was taking. He was not his normal
Self against Croatia and I think he may have carried an injury I don’t know but he wasn’t great. Colombia and Sweden he gave excellent CF performance.

. I’m not sure on the brilliant players coming though either and if they are and are City/Chelsea players, will they disappear because they get no first team football?

Sorry soacedsaint, can’t really agree with what you’ve said

Gareth Southgate summed it up perfectly in his post match interview.

 

If you can't agree with me then I am perfectly happy with what I said

Maybe I was harsh on Kane, but he was our captain and didn't seem to lead. Saying he might have had an injury is just making stuff up! I thought he was brilliant at the start of the tournament and faded badly. You are welcome to disagree.

The defence made mistakes, I agree, but their general play was stronger than other parts of the team. When we made mistakes we got punished, but did we punish others the same way?

 

I accept your offer to disagree. Kane had one poor game in my opinion up to and including the semi final. That was the semi final and he faded in that. I thought his hold up play was outstanding against Colombia and he took a beating at the same time - yet you called him a flat track bully. Yes, I think you’ve been very harsh.

From memory he wasted one chance (against Croatia) but the lack of chances I put down to the midfield and the lack of creativity.

 

I apologise if I hurt his feelings!

 

Literally no idea what tournament you were watching, Kane’s performance against Colombia was one of the finest I’ve ever seen in an England shirt, he took an absolute beating and stayed calm, linked play and incredibly.

The games after that he did drop off, but I think you’re forgetting the fact that he was given almost no service.
Harry Kane is a world class striker, he proved beyond all doubt at this tournament

 

On my TV schedule it said that I was watching the 2018 world cup. It seems unlikely this was wrong?

 

Spacedsaint, you moan about how people respond to you, but why don’t you just get on and discuss the points at hand.

The style people respond to you is just that, a style. It’s a forum, don’t get hung up on how people say things. It’s not personal, it’s just a reaction from Osvaldorama to your post. It may even be sarcastic but it’s not the end of the world.

A few weeks back, you inferred I was a jerk and posted that. No comment from me on it. No complaint to the mods. No crying (as you suggested earlier). I jut get on with it. You should to.

 

Erm, you keep telling me I am a negative person. I saved the post, if you want to now say you didn't, by the way. Not sure that isn't personal. Explain it to me. Explain how "you are negative" is not personal. The use of the second person pronoun, you, being, of course, designed for personal comments...

I have a policy. Treat people as they treat you. You guys can't respond to what I say wihtout being rude. So, I guess I am getting bored...

 

If pointing out that I find some of your posting negative is personal, then so be it. It’s not offensive or abusive. It’s a description of your posts. It’s not rude. I love the fact you saved the post!

I can be antagonistic, pedantic, sometimes aggressive, but I don’t throw abusive comments at people.

If you really are offended by me saying that you often post negatively, then I really suggest you put me on ignore.

 

No. You said I am negative. That goes beyond my posting. You inferred from my posting a characteristic you felt I had and threw it at me. That is personal. It is not a description of my post but me.

You are not stupid. You know that "you are a negative person" is abusive and unpleasant, but are too arrogant to say so.

I am done with you. If you were less rude I would be able to engage with content and not tone, but you don't allow that. I am glad you are so happy to admit to being aggressive. I also noticed this in you.