England -v- USA, Sat 7:30PM RTE & ITV HD

FatherTed

aaronh007 wrote: »

:pac:

bad photoshop (look at the reflection)

Le King

Tolf you Clint Dempsey was going to do it'1=!

USA USA USA


Come on the Satets

GLaDOS

Failblog delivers

Bounty Hunter

just watched the RTE reaction to this match online. They spent the vast majority speaking about capello and how he has failed to address since becoming coach the problems with playing Gerrard and Lampard in CM and saying he should just not pick one of them whilst suggesting alternatives like Parker who could have been used.

hmm Was it just me or has Gerrard not been playing LW for the vast majority of their games this past year with Barry (who is likely back for the next game) partnering frank in the centre?

leninbenjamin

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

hmm Was it just me or has Gerrard not been playing LW for the vast majority of their games this past year with Barry (who is likely back for the next game) partnering frank in the centre?

And in the opening game of the WC Capello plays Lampard and Gerrard together. Who looked as awful together as they did every other time we've seen them play together.

Tbh, I actually thought England missed Walcott a bit. Very average on the ball, but his pace sort of compensates for the sideways nature of the England side if you were to play Gerrard on the left. I'm beginning to think he's going to be Capello's regret.

Peyton Manning

leninbenjamin wrote: »

And in the opening game of the WC Capello plays Lampard and Gerrard together. Who looked as awful together as they did every other time we've seen them play together.

Tbh, I actually thought England missed Walcott a bit. Very average on the ball, but his pace sort of compensates for the sideways nature of the England side if you were to play Gerrard on the left. I'm beginning to think he's going to be Capello's regret.

But they have Lennon, who has everything Walcott offers and more, if not the same eye for goal (but with Gerrard, Lampard and Rooney in the team it's not as important). Even if Walcott had been in the team, he wouldn't have made much of an impact. England's wide players today made little to no impact, because of a route on approach, and little help from their full backs. Ashley Cole was anonymous going forward, and Glen Johnson only forayed forward enough to cause trouble in the US half on a handful of occasions. I'd say Capello had them instructed to pay more attention to their defensive duties due to the lack of a holding midfielder and the lack of pace in central defence, especially up against the ridiculously fast Findley and Altidore.

leninbenjamin

Archimedes wrote: »

But they have Lennon, who has everything Walcott offers and more,

Nah, he's not as quick. Seriously, Lennon is a better all round player, but Walcott offers that extra bit of pace on the counter. He starts a good bit deeper than Lennon, and because of that automatically seems to get the likes of Cole and Gerrard involved more.

Peyton Manning

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Nah, he's not as quick. Seriously, Lennon is a better all round player, but Walcott offers that extra bit of pace on the counter. He starts a good bit deeper than Lennon, and because of that automatically seems to get the likes of Cole and Gerrard involved more.

The difference in pace between Walcott and Lennon doesn't really matter imo. Even if Walcott is a bit faster, there's very few players who can keep up with Lennon. Even Patrice Evra, one of the best and faster full backs in the world has struggled dramatically against him. Lennon's better all round ability is worth far more than Walcott's very slight pace advantage imo.

mike65

What happened (I was babysiting)?:pac:

snaps

Why was Milner subbed? Was it because of the yellow card?

mike65

He was never fit to start, but the card appears to be why he got pulled at that point.

Cypher_sounds

snaps wrote: »

Why was Milner subbed? Was it because of the yellow card?

Apparently so, I thought Capello subbed him out a bit prematurely, he could have waited till half time at least. It has probably taken a bit of confidence out of Milner too only a half an hour into your first world cup match and being substituted a bit harsh from Capello

Cypher_sounds

mike65 wrote: »

He was never fit to start, but the card appears to be why he got pulled at that point.

Oh i didn't realise he wasn't fit, did he get an injury before the game? suprised Capello started him if he wasn't fit:confused

mike65

He had/has a virus of some sort

Mister men

Jesus so much claptrap about who to play who not to play etc... England's basic problem is the same as it has been for as far back as i can remember. They do not pass the ball well and the majority of their players are not comfortable on the ball. It does'nt matter the system they play it won't change that basic fact.

Boskowski

If I had to think of an analogy on England international campaigns - and I'm not basing that on yesterday, it's only a match, plenty of time to improve - it would be this one:
England is like that little boy who enjoys playing football with the other boys in his club. He is as good or as bad and as enthusiastic as the other little boys and if he was left alone he'd get his fair share of goals and medals and whatnot. But he's not left alone, he has this overbearing father on the sideline who constantly demands from him to be the best by far. Not only that but the father also goes around telling the family and friends and half the town what a brilliant player his son is. So instead of playin happily and gettin his fair share the little boy is actually paralyzed with fear of not performing appropriately and getting yet another earful back home.

Johnny Utah

Boskowski wrote: »

If I had to think of an analogy on England international campaigns - and I'm not basing that on yesterday, it's only a match, plenty of time to improve - it would be this one:
England is like that little boy who enjoys playing football with the other boys in his club. He is as good or as bad and as enthusiastic as the other little boys and if he was left alone he'd get his fair share of goals and medals and whatnot. But he's not left alone, he has this overbearing father on the sideline who constantly demands from him to be the best by far. Not only that but the father also goes around telling the family and friends and half the town what a brilliant player his son is. So instead of playin happily and gettin his fair share the little boy is actually paralyzed with fear of not performing appropriately and getting yet another earful back home.

Yeah, I'd agree with that analogy but I'd go a bit further. I think England's biggest problems over the past 30-40 years are:

(1) Not picking the best players/players currently in the best form. Part of this problem seems to be based around a preference for picking players from the bigger clubs. Hence, a genius like Matt LeTissier ends up with only a handful of caps for England. Criminal. He should have featured far more for Engalnd during the 90s.

(2) Inability to pass/keep the ball for long periods. Compare England to Spain, who are much more clinical at making the opposition run around and chase the ball. It's 2010, and England are still relying heavily on the long ball game. Hoofing the ball up the pitch to a big centre forward is backward thinking. European teams are well able to cope with this style of play. I'm not saying they should never employ long ball tactics, but they need to be able to retain possession far more.

(3) Unbearable media pressure. When I watch the players playing for England they invariable look very nervous (and this echoes the analogy above). All of these players (and some of them are genuinely world class- Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney) play in the top flight and should be used to high-pressure games, but when it comes to England, they look nervous... afraid to make a mistake because they know that they'll be pilloried when they get back home. Take for example, England's 1990 team (I was watching a match from the 1990 World Cup on ESPN Classic recently). England had a great team that year, probably their best chance to win it since '66. However, one thing whioch I noticed during the highlights of the game v Holland in 1990, is that Paul Parker seemed very anxious and he even made a few mistakes. Now, Paul Parker was a decent footballer with a successful career, but maybe he felt he was the weak link in that particular team (I'm not saying he was) and therefore was extra nervous as he didn'ty want to fcuk up. Kind of like Emile Heskey or Rob Green in the current team...... maybe they feel they more pressure than the likes of Rooney/Gerrard etc, because they aren't quite at the same level as those two players and therefore they are the ones most likely to be responsible for a costly mistake. (I'm not saying this is the case, just putting the theory forward). Nevertheless, the constant media pressure has certainly hindered England in recent decades.

Le King

Loved this result. I thought going into the pub everybody would be supporting England. However I must say it 90:10 in USA's favour.

Delighted with the result. I hope we can beat the last two teams and finish top.


Clint Dempsey is a hero, but Robert Green was awful.

snaps

Osu wrote: »

Loved this result. I thought going into the pub everybody would be supporting England. However I must say it 90:10 in USA's favour.

Delighted with the result. I hope we can beat the last two teams and finish top.


Clint Dempsey is a hero, but Robert Green was awful.

Your living in New york? Of course the support would be for USA?

Le King

snaps wrote: »

Your living in New york? Of course the support would be for USA?

Nope living in Dublin dude. From New York City.

Overheal

A lot of the US Soccer pundits agree that this was good progress for the USA Team. England is contestably one of the best teams in the world and its supported by the Football megaculture, that you just dont have over here.

Im just a little disappointed rags like the Sun and groups from RTE and the like are being so petty over hell knows what. I don't see the Irish there. And frankly if Ireland came out 1-1 with england you'd feel the same way I do: fairly satisfied.

Now hopefully I have a chance of looking forward to a USA v Italy game were we get payback for that bloody headbutt.

Kold

Osu wrote: »

Nope living in Dublin dude. From New York City.

You were in Dublin? Of course most of the support would be for the USA.

Overheal

Hey I rooted for Ireland too y'know :pac: im sure its the same with Osu

And then in the last cup when we both got out, I even rooted for England

And then I was pretty much resorting to rooting against Italy

Le King

Kold wrote: »

You were in Dublin? Of course most of the support would be for the USA.

Not by some of the opinions on here. A lot were supporting England here, few the US.

ziggyman17

redout

ziggyman17 wrote: »

Posted yesterday and its a photoshop.

Kold

Osu wrote: »

Not by some of the opinions on here. A lot were supporting England here, few the US.

Lot of English in this thread tbh, moreso than Americans. I think there was a lot of indifference and although a lot has changed, I reckon there was more support for the US than England.

I don't think many proper football fans of England underestimated the US at all. I knew a draw was likely anyway going on England's current form. I would go as far as to say we have a more talented pool of players though and should have won. I think this is backed by the fact that the US are a lot happier with the result than England. Just reminded me of so many Spurs games that we should have won this season but didn't. But a draw isn't the worst result (although the manner in which the goal was conceded and King getting injured is pretty annoying).

Actually being a Spurs fan and an England fan is a pretty similar experience.

Livvie

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Yeah, I'd agree with that analogy but I'd go a bit further. I think England's biggest problems over the past 30-40 years are:

(1) Not picking the best players/players currently in the best form. Part of this problem seems to be based around a preference for picking players from the bigger clubs. Hence, a genius like Matt LeTissier ends up with only a handful of caps for England. Criminal. He should have featured far more for Engalnd during the 90s.

(2) Inability to pass/keep the ball for long periods. Compare England to Spain, who are much more clinical at making the opposition run around and chase the ball. It's 2010, and England are still relying heavily on the long ball game. Hoofing the ball up the pitch to a big centre forward is backward thinking. European teams are well able to cope with this style of play. I'm not saying they should never employ long ball tactics, but they need to be able to retain possession far more.

(3) Unbearable media pressure. When I watch the players playing for England they invariable look very nervous (and this echoes the analogy above). All of these players (and some of them are genuinely world class- Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney) play in the top flight and should be used to high-pressure games, but when it comes to England, they look nervous... afraid to make a mistake because they know that they'll be pilloried when they get back home. Take for example, England's 1990 team (I was watching a match from the 1990 World Cup on ESPN Classic recently). England had a great team that year, probably their best chance to win it since '66. However, one thing whioch I noticed during the highlights of the game v Holland in 1990, is that Paul Parker seemed very anxious and he even made a few mistakes. Now, Paul Parker was a decent footballer with a successful career, but maybe he felt he was the weak link in that particular team (I'm not saying he was) and therefore was extra nervous as he didn'ty want to fcuk up. Kind of like Emile Heskey or Rob Green in the current team...... maybe they feel they more pressure than the likes of Rooney/Gerrard etc, because they aren't quite at the same level as those two players and therefore they are the ones most likely to be responsible for a costly mistake. (I'm not saying this is the case, just putting the theory forward). Nevertheless, the constant media pressure has certainly hindered England in recent decades.

Do you think that the number of foreign players in the EPL is also contributory?

PHB

I must say, I think this match is going to be over-emphasised in terms of how to view England.
Yes they were awful, but the thing is, Capello played this system just to get through the game, by in large, his partnership of Barry and Lampard in the middle, with Gerrard on the left works well. I think the changes we might see from it though, and where I would go in the future, is to put Rooney up front fully, with Cole off him at the centre of a midfield 3, Lennon on the Right, Gerrard on the left. In the toughest games, I think that'll be where they will get the best joy.
I also think that if he considered the idea, Barry, Carrick and Lampard in the middle, with Gerrard on the left, Lennon/Cole on the right and Rooney up front could work well as a system.

Kold

Against Mexico, Gerrard didn't want to be on the left at all. I think Joe would be a safer bet on the left with Gerrard behind Rooney.

ntlbell

redout wrote: »

Posted yesterday and its a photoshop.

lol do you set your alarm clock really early?

Overheal

ziggyman17 wrote: »

internet

Mister men

The most worrying thing for England fans is just how bad they look defensively. And I don't think Capello - for all his qualities - has done anything to help that so far.

The team looks unsettled and not very together; even moreso than usual. Maybe this is because Capello spent the few friendlies he had deciding on whether players like Baines, Joe Cole, Adam Johnson and Crouch were good enough: two of which didn't even make the squad, the other two of which don't seem to have a chance because he has his favourites in Heskey and co.

Anyway: back to the point. The keeper problem is a huge one. I think Hart's a very good goalkeeper personally, and by far the best of the three. But Capello - in his indecisiveness - has done nothing but dent the confidence of all three (at a guess). He's basically sent out the message that he doesn't have complete faith in any one of them: one is merely less of a risk (which turned out to be a horribly bad gamble) than the others.

Apart from the goalkeeper issue, there are two attacking fullbacks who aren't great at defending and who are liable to be exposed on the counter: there will be space in behind. And the wingers aren't exactly going to offer much protection either. Most alarmingly, they'll get no support from any sort of defensive midfielder (Barry isn't one). Having said that, they were both alright against the USA. But there could be problems to come in the future.

Getting more serious now in terms of defensive problems - the centre backs. Taking Ledley King was a complete-and-utter waste of time. Anyone who can barely train should not be allowed to play at such a high level. He's a permanent crock and he managed to prove it within 45 minutes. The trouble for England (as a result of Ferdinand's injury) is that Carragher, for whatever reason, is next choice. For me it would be Dawson or someone else because Carragher is coming off a horrible season: he's slow, he's vulnerable and his distribution is shocking (although it fits in well with the rest of the England team in fairness). I thought he was lucky not to be sent off for the last-man challenge when he brought his arm across... his yellow-card challenge wasn't much better, and the Altidore break pretty much showed up his weaknesses to a tee. He's an option: but a risky one.

The worst thing for England is that they don't have a defensive midfielder. Barry will be a lot better, but he's still a lot better at being a central / box-to-box midfielder. He focuses on passing and creating the play, as well as getting forward. Therefore he isn't natural at what England so desperately need: dropping back into a defensive-midfield area, getting tackles in and pressuring opponents. Last night the USA players were able to move into the space between defence and midfield with absolute ease because Lampard completely failed to drop deep and/or move with them because it's simply not natural to him.

Against a Serbia/Germany (let alone a Holland/Argentina or anything better) there will be a huge price to pay for that sort of defensive weakness. It's almost as if England have to go against their natural game and try to outscore the opposition (unless they plan on being ridiculously Greece-esque cagey) because that's the only way I can see them going far in this competition.

With Slovenia now beating Algeria there could be a bit of pressure in the last game (assuming USA beat Slovenia and England beat Algeria):they should still be fine though. In a trickier group (i.e. France's, Germany's, Brazil's or even Holland's) then I wouldn't be so sure of England actually getting through considering what we've seen so far.

TouchingVirus

TouchingVirus

I know, I know, I should let this thread go, but this one actually made me properly laugh out loud

IvySlayer

This one made me laugh so hard. Stolen from AH!