England v Sweden - 8pm KO

Nuri Sahin

titan18 wrote: »

Thought Martin Olsson was excellent tonight for Sweden. Made Johnson look like a fool

I like Olsson, but it wasn't hard to do given the way Johnson was playing from start to finish bar the odd decent challenge.

steelcityblues

I think that is the 3rd match of the tournament with five goals - incredible!

titan18

-Ade- wrote: »

I like Olsson, but it wasn't hard to do given the way Johnson was playing from start to finish bar the odd decent challenge.

Aye, true, but whilst I always thought he was decent for Blackburn, tonight he was much better imo. Really got at England through the whole game. First time watching him where I was thinking of him replacing Evra at United

Jimmy Iovine

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think that is the 3rd match of the tournament with five goals - incredible!

46 goals so far. Average of 2.875 per game.

There were 64 goals in the '96 tournament. We're only through the second round and we're only 18 behind.

On track for around 90 goals if this rate keeps up. The average in South Africa was only 2.27. Makes for a world of a difference in the scores.

windsurfer99ie

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I can still see England playing for a draw against the Ukraine and losing...

That's my fear ... in some ways a draw against Sweden would have been preferable ... the Ukraine game would then have been a straight knock out.

Mr.Nice Guy

Pleased for Hodgson tonight getting the big calls right.

I thought Sweden were desperately poor this evening. Pace down the flanks caused them real problems, and they looked poor under pressure as we have done. It was an exciting game featuring two pretty average sides.

When we play them I can see it being a largely dull, tight affair which our wide players may help decide.

steelcityblues

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

46 goals so far. Average of 2.875 per game.

There were 64 goals in the '96 tournament. We're only through the second round and we're only 18 behind.

On track for around 90 goals if this rate keeps up. The average in South Africa was only 2.27. Makes for a world of a difference in the scores.

Also, none of the goals so far have been penalty kicks.

windsurfer99ie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Pleased for Hodgson tonight getting the big calls right.

I thought Sweden were desperately poor this evening. Pace down the flanks caused them real problems, and they looked poor under pressure as we have done. It was an exciting game featuring two pretty average sides.

When we play them I can see it being a largely dull, tight affair which our wide players may help decide.

Like Dunphy this evening, you are getting confused and contradicting yourself.

Jimmy Iovine

steelcityblues wrote: »

Also, none of the goals so far have been penalty kicks.

That's probably the most incredible part of the goals stat. One penalty in 16 games and it was missed. What a tournament this has been.

mike65

It'll get cagey now.

kitakyushu

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

46 goals so far. Average of 2.875 per game.

There were 64 goals in the '96 tournament. We're only through the second round and we're only 18 behind.

On track for around 90 goals if this rate keeps up. The average in South Africa was only 2.27. Makes for a world of a difference in the scores.

Here's the goal averages by round for the tournament so far compared to previous ones. As can be seen the number of goals generally even rises on match day three. So some good games ahead!

year|1|2|3|QF|SF|F|Grand Total
1996|1.63|2.13|3.13|1.00|1.00|3.00|2.06
2000|3.00|1.75|3.38|3.50|1.50|3.00|2.74
2004|2.13|2.50|3.38|2.00|2.00|1.00|2.48
2008|2.00|2.88|2.25|2.75|4.00|1.00|2.48
2012|2.50|3.25| -| -| -| -| 2.88
Grand Total|2.25|2.50|3.03|2.31|2.13|2.00|2.53

Barr

Great second half tonite. England were good for the win.

Gonzovision

What was with Ibra and Hart?

kryogen

gonzovision wrote: »

What was with Ibra and Hart?

The Swedes were celebrating the goal, in the English net, not purposely trying to wind them up thats just where they were when the ball went in, and Joe tried to push a couple of them out, Ibra politely asked him not to do that again.

Gonzovision

kryogen wrote: »

The Swedes were celebrating the goal, in the English net, not purposely trying to wind them up thats just where they were when the ball went in, and Joe tried to push a couple of them out, Ibra politely asked him not to do that again.

Politely in the Ibra way! A loss for the tournament.

Dempsey

gonzovision wrote: »

What was with Ibra and Hart?

The Swedes were all celebrating and the "huddle" was moving towards the goal and Hart tried to push the lot of them out and Ibra started on him to basically say, in his own way, we'll go back to our own half when we like.

klose

Great game, caroll was very good too the header was world class he won most hearders and defended well. Gave away too many frees though, walcott is a cert to start the next game surely?

England will end up facing either spain, italy or croatia, unfortunately for them their tournament will end their me thinks, but football being football anything could happen.

kitakyushu

whippedcream wrote: »

Great game, caroll was very good too the header was world class he won most hearders and defended well. Gave away too many frees though, walcott is a cert to start the next game surely?

England will end up facing either spain, italy or croatia, unfortunately for them their tournament will end their me thinks, but football being football anything could happen.

I think England could beat Croatia. Croatia play a physical game and are very dependent on crossing and headers and that would play right into Englands hands. Italy and Spain however would be too cute for them.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

He was the only Swedish player who had an impact on the game, he was the only Swedish player capable of doing something.

So?

You realise it's possible to be talented and lazy yes? You realise that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world yes? With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. You realise that that Swedish team was fairly mediocre yes?

So one of the most talented attacking players in the world was the best attacker in a mediocre team and that proves he's not lazy does it? No, actually it doesn't.

kryogen

Pro. F wrote: »

So?

You realise it's possible to be talented and lazy yes? You realise that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world yes? With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. You realise that that Swedish team was fairly mediocre yes?

So one of the most talented attacking players in the world was the best attacker in a mediocre team and that proves he's not lazy does it? No, actually it doesn't.

Your answering quite a lot of your own questions there bro so Im guessing its probably best to leave you at it.

Pro. F

Renn wrote: »

Wtf

Back to the pub Eamon.

Renn wrote: »

My advice would be to stop listening to the guys on RTE and start watching him play.

Renn wrote: »

If only he could run around like Stephen Hunt

Renn wrote: »

Pro. F's hero.

Yeah, great contribution. All you need now is to say I've been playing too much Football Manager and you have the full set of canned gobshíte non-arguments.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

Your answering quite a lot of your own questions there bro so Im guessing its probably best to leave you at it.

Yeah go on. Back out when you know your argument has been shown up.

Jelle1880

I like Sweden a lot, and I would have loved to see them beat England.

But you can't fault England, they were clinical up front when it mattered.

Still would love to see them up against Spain or Germany though, they'll be torn apart.

And Wellbeck, son, are you serious ?
What a goal.

kryogen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah go on. Back out when you know your argument has been shown up.

You need that to make you feel like you got the win thats cool with me buddy

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

You need that to make you feel like you got the win thats cool with me buddy

Stop spoofing. You are clearly backing out of the argument. You claim I am answering my own questions. Well yes obviously, they were rhetorical. If you are going to be so phoney about it here, I'll reword that post for you:

"Obviously it's possible to be talented and lazy. We both know that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world. With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. And that Swedish team was fairly mediocre.

One of the most talented attacking players in the world being the best attacker in a mediocre team does not prove that he is not lazy."

I look forward to you making some other bullshít ad hominem excuse for why you're not going to carry on the discussion you started with me.

Francie Barrett

Pro. F wrote: »

So?

You realise it's possible to be talented and lazy yes? You realise that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world yes? With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. You realise that that Swedish team was fairly mediocre yes?

So one of the most talented attacking players in the world was the best attacker in a mediocre team and that proves he's not lazy does it? No, actually it doesn't.

You obviously only watched the match in bits and pieces because just about everyone here acknowledged that Ibramhimovic was pure class tonight. It's not his fault that the team just kept giving the ball away every time he passed it.

Ibrahimovic is world class no matter what anyone says.

Francie Barrett

Pro. F wrote: »

Stop spoofing. You are clearly backing out of the argument. You claim I am answering my own questions. Well yes obviously, they were rhetorical. If you are going to be so phoney about it here, I'll reword that post for you:

"Obviously it's possible to be talented and lazy. We both know that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world. With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. And that Swedish team was fairly mediocre.

One of the most talented attacking players in the world being the best attacker in a mediocre team does not prove that he is not lazy."

I look forward to you making some other bullshít ad hominem excuse for why you're not going to carry on the discussion you started with me.

Just give it up. Ibra is world class.

Paul Tergat

Ibra is different gravy

Corholio

Francie Barrett wrote: »

You obviously only watched the match in bits and pieces because just about everyone here acknowledged that Ibramhimovic was pure class tonight. It's not his fault that the team just kept giving the ball away every time he passed it.

Ibrahimovic is world class no matter what anyone says.

He's a class player, but the incident with Terry pretty much summed him up as a player. Great play and strength to get the ball past Terry and then gave such a lazy pass that Terry cut out, and Ibra just stood there and looked to the heavens.

kryogen

Pro. F wrote: »

Stop spoofing. You are clearly backing out of the argument. You claim I am answering my own questions. Well yes obviously, they were rhetorical. If you are going to be so phoney about it here, I'll reword that post for you:

"Obviously it's possible to be talented and lazy. We both know that Ibra is one of the most talented players in the world. With his strength and skill he's far too much for probably 99% of the defenders on the planet. And that Swedish team was fairly mediocre.

One of the most talented attacking players in the world being the best attacker in a mediocre team does not prove that he is not lazy."

I look forward to you making some other bullshít ad hominem excuse for why you're not going to carry on the discussion you started with me.

When did I start this with you?

I don't spoof, if I was backing out I would hold my hands up as I always do when I'm wrong.

Honestly Pro, I really just don't care at the moment,Ill humour you for the sake of your blood pressure briefly though, we have differing views on Ibra obiously, you see him as lazy, I don't, he plays the game at his own pace, sure. But he is far from lazy when it comes to it imo.

He pretty much always shows for the ball, he wants it, he always wants to be the focal point of the attack, he comes deep more often then not to pick up the ball so that he can run the attack,he very rarely loses the ball, he puts in effort straight away to get back, more often then not using his strength or speed of foot to nick the ball back.

He prefers to play the game at a slower pace, only quickening really when on the break, but I do not take that as laziness from him, nobody in my right to draw as a comparison, the obvious for most people these days would be Berba, I would consider Berba to be a technially lazier player however.

You invented an argument here, for what reason I'm not sure, and your welcome to it. Me saying he was the most likely player to do something or that he was the only player capable of doing something, whichever it was, was hardly my argument for why he could not be a lazy player.

Your blood gets up pretty easy but I don't take any of your aggression personally, if you do have a problem you are more then welcome to pm me.

Francie Barrett

kryogen wrote: »

When did I start this with you?

I don't spoof, if I was backing out I would hold my hands up as I always do when I'm wrong.

Honestly Pro, I really just don't care at the moment,Ill humour you for the sake of your blood pressure briefly though, we have differing views on Ibra obiously, you see him as lazy, I don't, he plays the game at his own pace, sure. But he is far from lazy when it comes to it imo.

He pretty much always shows for the ball, he wants it, he always wants to be the focal point of the attack, he comes deep more often then not to pick up the ball so that he can run the attack,he very rarely loses the ball, he puts in effort straight away to get back, more often then not using his strength or speed of foot to nick the ball back.

He prefers to play the game at a slower pace, only quickening really when on the break, but I do not take that as laziness from him, nobody in my right to draw as a comparison, the obvious for most people these days would be Berba, I would consider Berba to be a technially lazier player however.

You invented an argument here, for what reason I'm not sure, and your welcome to it. Me saying he was the most likely player to do something or that he was the only player capable of doing something, whichever it was, was hardly my argument for why he could not be a lazy player.

Your blood gets up pretty easy but I don't take any of your aggression personally, if you do have a problem you are more then welcome to pm me.

The man scored 28 goals in 32 games and was the top scorer in perhaps the most difficult league in the world. He has nothing to prove, especially considering he is playing with some of the dregs of world football, many of whom aren't fit to lace his boots.

kryogen

Francie Barrett wrote: »

The man scored 28 goals in 32 games and was the top scorer in perhaps the most difficult league in the world. He has nothing to prove, especially considering he is playing with some of the dregs of world football, many of whom aren't fit to lace his boots.

I agree, but I also understand that Pro is not saying he is not talented and hasnt done it everywhere he has been, nobody can deny that.

His point is that, that does not necessarily mean he is not lazy, which is true, he could be so talented and successful and still be lazy. It is my opinion that he is not lazy but I can understand why people would see him as that at times.

He is a supremely gifted footballer, one of the very best inthe world without a doubt, I dont think that was being questioned

Pro. F

Francie Barrett wrote: »

You obviously only watched the match in bits and pieces because just about everyone here acknowledged that Ibramhimovic was pure class tonight. It's not his fault that the team just kept giving the ball away every time he passed it.

Ibrahimovic is world class no matter what anyone says.

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Just give it up. Ibra is world class.

Did I say he wasn't world class? No, I said he was lazy. It's possible to be lazy and still world class if you have the talent. He would obviously be even better if he worked harder.

I didn't watch the game in bits and pieces, I watched it all through. Ibra stood still and watched when he should have been moving into a better position on many occasions. I don't care what some people in this thread think, that is laziness. In a game of this importance it is shocking laziness. If it wasn't for his incredible technique, strength and agility nobody would be arguing about whether he or not he is lazy.

Paul Tergat

Moving away from Ibra tonight what annoyed me is the desire to try for killer balls, kill the game off or even forcing the game.

After going 3-2 up I said just keep the ball, even if you have to go back/to the side just keep possession. Instead, and its the attitude inherent in the English game, there's some need to try get rid of it and let them have the ball back so we sit deep and try hold out.

Shankly Gates

Welbeck goal was nothing more than a lucky accident.

Paul Tergat

Shankly Gates wrote: »

Welbeck goal was nothing more than a lucky accident.

Hahaha. A technically superb finish. Off you go mate

Shankly Gates

He tried to control it, fell over and went off celebrating as if he meant it.

Paul Tergat

Shankly Gates wrote: »

He tried to control it, fell over and went off celebrating as if he meant it.

Yeah thats exactly how it went.

Rather than the cross was behind him so he adjusted his position, got the right contact and after making contact instantly looked to the point in the goal to where he had intended on placing it.

Again, sublime finish.

kryogen

Shankly Gates wrote: »

Welbeck goal was nothing more than a lucky accident.

Samich

@Pro F, seen it many times already about how if someone doesn't want to reply to a post you start accusing them of spoofing and being wrong.

If nobody backed out of an argument there'd be no end to the argument. You expect someone to give their opinion and then just say, "actually, you are right after all" or expect them to go on into infinity arguing?

This site is for giving opinions in my opinion, not for arguing. Saying why you think you might be right is ok too, but when someone has made their opinion clear and doesn't want to be going around in circles then he's allowed not to give an opinion on your views if he doesn't want to.

And I may or may not reply back, before you accuse me of spoofing.

Shankly Gates

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Yeah thats exactly how it went.

Rather than the cross was behind him so he adjusted his position, got the right contact and after making contact instantly looked to the point in the goal to where he had intended on placing it.

Again, sublime finish.

Nah for me it was the cross coming in behind him that made him lose balance while trying to control it.

kryogen

Shankly Gates wrote: »

Nah for me it was the cross coming in behind him that made him lose balance while trying to control it.

If that is your genuine opinion, and your not simply on a wind up, I would respectfully request that you watch it again so.

Paul Tergat

Shankly Gates wrote: »

Nah for me it was the cross coming in behind him that made him lose balance while trying to control it.

Nobody tries to control the ball with the technique or body shape that Welbeck used.

swoody

will walcott start against ukraine or will woy persist with young and milner

kryogen

swoody wrote: »

will walcott start against ukraine or will woy persist with young and milner

If I was having money on it I would say he will start with Milner and Young.

Seaneh

kryogen wrote: »

If I was having money on it I would say he will start with Milner and Young.

Walcott playing beside Rooney up front?

I wouldn't be surprised.

kryogen

Seaneh wrote: »

Walcott playing beside Rooney up front?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Walcott came off for treatment on his calf, if that is any way troublesome he wont be involved at all unless England need a goal I feel. I think Roy will stick with Welbeck, he has done nothing to warrant being dropped, he defends from the front which Roy would like and he has bags of energy.

I could see Carroll getting in ahead of him for his aerial ability, but other then that I dont think Roy will change him. Rooney and Welbeck up front, Rooney more withdrawn, Young left, Milner right and Parker and Gerrard in the middle same as tonight.

Be very surprised if it was anything else tbh

Seaneh

kryogen wrote: »

Walcott came off for treatment on his calf, if that is any way troublesome he wont be involved at all unless England need a goal I feel. I think Roy will stick with Welbeck, he has done nothing to warrant being dropped, he defends from the front which Roy would like and he has bags of energy.

I could see Carroll getting in ahead of him for his aerial ability, but other then that I dont think Roy will change him. Rooney and Welbeck up front, Rooney more withdrawn, Young left, Milner right and Parker and Gerrard in the middle same as tonight.

Be very surprised if it was anything else tbh

I'd misread your post as saying "He (Walcott) will start with Young and Milner".

ha.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

When did I start this with you?

I don't spoof, if I was backing out I would hold my hands up as I always do when I'm wrong.

Honestly Pro, I really just don't care at the moment,Ill humour you for the sake of your blood pressure briefly though,
...
You invented an argument here, for what reason I'm not sure, and your welcome to it. Me saying he was the most likely player to do something or that he was the only player capable of doing something, whichever it was, was hardly my argument for why he could not be a lazy player.

Your blood gets up pretty easy but I don't take any of your aggression personally, if you do have a problem you are more then welcome to pm me.

I didn't invite an argument. When you responded with that to a post of mine where I'm arguing that he is lazy, then it looked to me like that was your argument for why he is not lazy. I think that was a reasonable interpretation of your post.

My blood was up, as you say, because I seen you thank some of the obnoxious ''Eamon Dunphy'' responses from Renn and the whole ''well there's no point responding if you use rhetorical questions'' I viewed as a cop out trying to claim I was being unreasonable. But it's true that that post of mine with the rhetorical questions was tetchy and I think we were both just annoying each other more and more by degrees. So I suggest we just draw a line under it.

kryogen wrote: »

...we have differing views on Ibra obiously, you see him as lazy, I don't, he plays the game at his own pace, sure. But he is far from lazy when it comes to it imo.

He pretty much always shows for the ball, he wants it, he always wants to be the focal point of the attack, he comes deep more often then not to pick up the ball so that he can run the attack,he very rarely loses the ball, he puts in effort straight away to get back, more often then not using his strength or speed of foot to nick the ball back.

He prefers to play the game at a slower pace, only quickening really when on the break, but I do not take that as laziness from him, nobody in my right to draw as a comparison, the obvious for most people these days would be Berba, I would consider Berba to be a technially lazier player however.

I agree that he comes deep a lot, well especially for Sweden, but he stays deep (or in whichever position he happens to find himself) far too much imo. Too often when he's not on the ball (often after he's just made a pass) he just stands there looking at it rather than moving into space and giving an option again. He does do great work winning the ball back sometimes, but conversely he also spends a lot of time strolling back when he should be working harder.

And the Swedish team was doing a lot of switching of positions to accommodate him too. When he found himself on the wing, the wide man would come inside, when he found himself deep a central player would push up, etc. But when Ibra had a team mate on the ball occupying the same area as he was often he would just stand there and let them work around him or hand the ball over to him, rather than moving to give them a proper option. So they were doing loads of movement to accommodate him wherever he went, but he didn't reciprocate very much. That saved him even more energy.

For me he's all about the spells of application mixed with spells of cruising and the sum total doesn't come near to him putting in a proper shift imo.

Pro. F

Samich wrote: »

@Pro F, seen it many times already about how if someone doesn't want to reply to a post you start accusing them of spoofing and being wrong.

No you haven't seen it many times. You've seen it a few times at most and each time the other poster was either using an ad hominem argument or was trolling.

Samich wrote: »

If nobody backed out of an argument there'd be no end to the argument. You expect someone to give their opinion and then just say, "actually, you are right after all" or expect them to go on into infinity arguing?

This site is for giving opinions in my opinion, not for arguing. Saying why you think you might be right is ok too, but when someone has made their opinion clear and doesn't want to be going around in circles then he's allowed not to give an opinion on your views if he doesn't want to.

And I may or may not reply back, before you accuse me of spoofing.

If the site was for only giving opinions then it would be a private blogging site and not a discussion forum. The clue is in the name "discussion forum".

When someone thinks they are only going to be repeating themselves they say something to that effect and usually something like ''let's agree to disagree''. That happens all the time with everybody and I say it frequently and accept when it's said just like everybody else does. When someone uses an ad hominem argument as a finish to a discussion then that's not the same thing at all.