France v England Match Thread

bwatson

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Clive Tyldesley is one insufferable fool though. England looked as likely as France to nick it?

18 shots to 4. I'm muting it the next time England are on.

RTE were showing the game too.

mike65

Who was commentating for RTE - Ger Canning was it? Isn't he a Bog Ball man?

Francie Barrett

bwatson wrote: »

A point against clearly the best side in the group in the opening game. You can use those smile faces all you like but its far preferable to trying to match a side who are far better technically and being convincingly beaten, as happened to your side last night.

Ouch

kitakyushu

bwatson wrote: »

A point against clearly the best side in the group in the opening game. You can use those smile faces all you like but its far preferable to trying to match a side who are far better technically and being convincingly beaten, as happened to your side last night.

Ah c'mon now! (we never actually tried to match them:D).

kryogen

bwatson wrote: »

A point against clearly the best side in the group in the opening game. You can use those smile faces all you like but its far preferable to trying to match a side who are far better technically and being convincingly beaten, as happened to your side last night.

What game did you watch?

Ireland didnt try to match Croatia, they played pretty much exactly the same way as England did, except they gave away 3 sloppy goals instead of 1.

The point is, France had clearly exploitable weaknesses and England didnt even try to get at them, its a shame is all.

SirDelboy18

mike65 wrote: »

Who was commentating for RTE - Ger Canning was it? Isn't he a Bog Ball man?

I stopped when he said England definitely deserved to be ahead. And then when he called Alou Diarra, Abou Diaby

conor360

bwatson wrote: »

RTE were showing the game too.

Ger Canning isin't much easier listen to. He should stick to the GAA commentary.

Corholio

bwatson wrote: »

A point against clearly the best side in the group in the opening game. You can use those smile faces all you like but its far preferable to trying to match a side who are far better technically and being convincingly beaten, as happened to your side last night.

Ooh someones nerve got touched.

Both teams won't go too far in the compeition, much of a muchness. Sweden and Ukraine would both fancy themselves against England after watching that.

edgecutter

England will win nothing with their attitude. They don't seem to want to win games and they are pleased with a point even though they should be a European heavyweight.

SirDelboy18

kryogen wrote: »

What game did you watch?

Ireland didnt try to match Croatia, they played pretty much exactly the same way as England did, except they gave away sloppy goals.

The point is, France had clearly exploitable weaknesses and England didnt even try to get at them, its a shame is all.

France still definitely had a few more gears. Very clear sense that they could have turned up the style if they wanted.

kryogen

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

France still definitely had a few more gears. Very clear sense that they could have turned up the style if they wanted.

Why didn't they want to though?

It puzzles me, they had a chance to take a huge step toward getting out of the group as winner but seemed happy to stroll around and not get beat, I know they dominated the game, but they found it very hard to get behind England

kitakyushu

edgecutter wrote: »

England will win nothing with their attitude. They don't seem to want to win games and they are pleased with a point even though they should be a European heavyweight.

They should be, but they're not. Finally even they're accepting it and looking for an alternative way.

Jax Teller

Think Chamberlain thinks its a good France team .

Hank Scorpio

edgecutter wrote: »

England will win nothing with their attitude. They don't seem to want to win games and they are pleased with a point even though they should be a European heavyweight.

Chelsea much? Rooney coming back will be a massive boost

Francie Barrett

Corholio wrote: »

Both teams won't go too far in the compeition, much of a muchness.

:pac:

I would say the English are loving being written off like they have been.

MagicMarker

Chamberlain seems like a good intelligent lad, he'll make a great pundit one day.

Dozen Wicked Words

Points an OK result, defended very well but do wonder if there is a plan B. Its going to be a poor enough, very tight group I think. Hopefully we, will get out of the group, but will have to step up a huge amount to get any further than that.

bwatson

Corholio wrote: »

Ooh someones nerve got touched.

Both teams won't go too far in the compeition, much of a muchness. Sweden and Ukraine would both fancy themselves against England after watching that.

Of course they will fancy themselves against England. Its a group stage with three games. Everyone will back themselves to progress no matter who they are.

I think England will not play as deep against the Swedes and will emerge with 3 points.

G.K.

I thought Welbeck was outstanding.

Beyond that, Milner, Ox, Johnson were pretty good.

The rest weren't too good, Young was dire.

ambid

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

I stopped when he said England definitely deserved to be ahead. And then when he called Alou Diarra, Abou Diaby

Yeah me too. When Abou Diaby missed that header I switched over to ITV.

flyswatter

Gerrard: "We caused them as many problems as they did against us"

France shots on target: 15
England shots on target: 1

K4t

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

France still definitely had a few more gears. Very clear sense that they could have turned up the style if they wanted.

No, they couldn't. England's two lines of defence along with great work from Welbeck and Young meant that France were limited to long range efforts from Benzema.

You can calculate stats all day long but the fact is England should have won 2-1 if not for Milner being a decidedly average footballer at this standard.

SirDelboy18

kryogen wrote: »

Why didn't they want to though?

It puzzles me, they had a chance to take a huge step toward getting out of the group as winner but seemed happy to stroll around and not get beat, I know they dominated the game, but they found it very hard to get behind England

My personal view that Blanc wanted to make sure he didn't lose first and foremost. The intention then would be to beat the other two nicely and build up some confidence.

Giggsy11

MagicMarker wrote: »

Chamberlain seems like a good intelligent lad, he'll make a great pundit one day.

Bookmark this, and then in 20 years you can say "I told ya".

SirDelboy18

K4t wrote: »

No, they couldn't. England's two lines of defence along with great work from Welbeck and Young meant that France were limited to long range efforts from Benzema.

You can calculate stats all day long but the fact is England should have won 2-1 if not for Milner being a decidedly average footballer at this standard.

Yes they could. France had far more chances, and many were goalbound and looking ominous only for last ditch blocks.

England had 2 chances of any significance, France had far more.

uncleoswald

Think England could have been ripped apart if they lost their discipline and opened up.

Chamberlain seems like a modest, intelligent, well spoken footballer. Obviously something has gone wrong with his upbringing.

bwatson

kryogen wrote: »

What game did you watch?

Ireland didnt try to match Croatia, they played pretty much exactly the same way as England did, except they gave away 3 sloppy goals instead of 1.

The point is, France had clearly exploitable weaknesses and England didnt even try to get at them, its a shame is all.

Only a shame because you think (probably correctly) that if England had sought to be more expansive they would have left gaps for the likes of Benzema and Ribery to exploit. That wouldn't have suited England at all really would it?

Drumpot

Does anybody really blame England for looking for the draw?

I certainly don't find it surprising after all the crap that happened before the championships started , missing their best player thru suspension and being stuck with a bunch of liverpool players who wouldn't make most people's squad.

And the first games of groups can usually be funny affairs. Are holland crap if they get knocked out against Germany? No team has made a statement of intent . .

England might get better after this. Greece and Denmark have shown what can be done with a well organised team that clicks in a tournament. I wouldn't have England as favourites to do much, but I wouldnt dismiss them as quickly as others.

edgecutter

nuxxx wrote: »

Chelsea much? Rooney coming back will be a massive boost

I doubt it. I think welbeck plays better in that England set up rather than Rooney, but time will tell.

K4t

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Yes they could. France had far more chances, and many were goalbound and looking ominous only for last ditch blocks.

England had 2 chances of any significance, France had far more.

They had a few shots on target that were blocked well and most saved comfortably, standard for any game of football. They took more shots than England who didn't take advanatge of the possession they had around France's 18 yard line.

France did create more chances but England had the most clearcut but sadly for them failed to capitalise on it.

You're giving a completely different representation of the match than it actually was.

Giggsy11

Stats are useless when you want to prove which team had more chances. Well France took pot shots from distance which resulted in increase in shots on target.

They were the better team though, but these 15:1 stats are useless.

Read somewhere that England had 4 shots from inside the box, so did France. Rest all from distance.

Amirani

I like how Hodgson doesn't bull**** on about referees.

MisterAnarchy

Giggsy11 wrote: »

England CMs were so poor they couldn't string 2 passes together or retain possession. No wonder whole team defends deep and gets dominated by every team.

Englands midfield has been like that for as long as I can remember ,very little quality.

1 shot on target for England ,from a set piece and 2 shots off target.
Putred stuff.

SirDelboy18

K4t wrote: »

They took more shots than England who didn't take advanatge of the possession they had around France's 18 yard line.

Still not sure where your point is coming from. France were camped outside the England box for minutes on end without doing anything. If anything, that would support an argument in favour of France.

England had one shot on target. Please be realistic, and don't claim that they had better chances to win.

Renn

bwatson wrote: »

A point against clearly the best side in the group in the opening game. You can use those smile faces all you like but its far preferable to trying to match a side who are far better technically and being convincingly beaten, as happened to your side last night.

Who are my side?

kryogen

bwatson wrote: »

Only a shame because you think (probably correctly) that if England had sought to be more expansive they would have left gaps for the likes of Benzema and Ribery to exploit. That wouldn't have suited England at all really would it?

Those gaps still got exploited at times though and it took last ditch defending and some good saves to keep the scores level

Of course I would have liked to see England attack because I thought it was the best chance I had for France to beat them It would have suited me! England is a secondary concern.

The defending on the edge of their own box with a blanket defense was painful to watch and must have been very tiring mentally and physically for England so yes, an attempt to get at the full backs and exploit the weak areas there and in the centre of defense would have been better for England I think.

I don't think they needed to be that negative, when they were showing some ambition they were matching France and could have caused them problems, giving France the initiative and chasing around after the ball for the majority of the 90 minutes was poor i thought, they are actually better then that.

At the end of the day, they have played the strongest team in the group now and have avoided defeat so they will be happy, a point is a good result. Could have been better but it obviously could have been worse

greendom

What's the story with ITV's agenda with the ref ?

G.K.

edgecutter wrote: »

I doubt it. I think welbeck plays better in that England set up rather than Rooney, but time will tell.

In theory both will play. Rooney in the place of Young, who was anonymous today.

Rekop dog

Wasn't too happy with Blanc's use of his bench. Menez would have really worked the flanks well against very tired defenders, thought Nasri and Ribery's influence waned later on due to the heat.

steelcityblues

Callers to the beeb really losing the plot about the so called 'great' England performance.

bwatson

Renn wrote: »

Who are my side?

Judging from your posts in threads yesterday, Ireland. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll take it back.

mike65

greendom wrote: »

What's the story with ITV's agenda with the ref ?

There was no agenda (beyond the usual ITV bias!) he was giving England as little as he could. That was clear to see.

kryogen

greendom wrote: »

What's the story with ITV's agenda with the ref ?

They are an English channel and the ref didn't exactly give England many of the 50/50 decisions

K4t

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

England had one shot on target. Please be realistic, and don't claim that they had better chances to win.

I think you're underestimating Milner's miss. It was an open goal, easily the best chance of the match. France took more shots, therefore they're obviously going to have more chances. Were most of them a realistic goal threat? The answer is no.

Pepe LeFrits

The ref was **** in fairness, fair play to Hodgson and Gerrard for steering clear of that. Easier to do when you've had a satisfactory result though I guess.

kryogen

G.K. wrote: »

In theory both will play. Rooney in the place of Young, who was anonymous today.

Id say Rooney will play and Young will move to the wing

Drumpot

kryogen wrote: »

They are an English channel and the ref didn't exactly give England many of the 50/50 decisions

I thought they were reserved for an English station. Sky would be camped outside the refs house if they had the game!

And they were good not to make anything out of the bias ref, even if they were happy with a draw it's still annoying when a ref is that bad!

Renn

bwatson wrote: »

Judging from your posts in threads yesterday, Ireland. Correct me if I'm wrong and I'll take it back.

I'm Irish but haven't properly supported (whatever the hell that means) the national team in years.

I was laughing at the use of the word 'gutsy' - I don't think it was a particularly gutsy performance. More applicable to them attacking and actually causing France some problems in midfield/at the back. Good point no doubt but my gripe was only with that word.

kryogen

Drumpot wrote: »

I thought they were reserved for an English station. Sky would be camped outside the refs house if they had the game!

And they were good not to make anything out of the bias ref, even if they were happy with a draw it's still annoying when a ref is that bad!

I didn't watch on ITV so can't actually comment specifically, and I turned off the game to put on Mickey Mouse at the final whistle so can't comment on the rte lads either!

kitakyushu

I like ITV's "bendy lines" on the England defence/mid analysis