England v Italy 11 PM. (Mod warning linked in OP)

Blackpitts

some stats: Pirlo made 108 passes last night, with a % of success = 95%.
The most in Italy's part of the pitch, so it's not accurate to say he is an attacking midfielder, he plays just above the defence.

http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/mondiali/brasile2014/2014/06/15/foto/brasile_2014_pirlo_statistiche_da_robot_95_passaggi_completati-89041677/1/?ref=HRESS-2#1

Smithwicks Man

Blackpitts wrote: »

some stats: Pirlo made 108 passes last night, with a % of success = 95%.
The most in Italy's part of the pitch, so it's not accurate to say he is an attacking midfielder, he plays just above the defence.

http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/mondiali/brasile2014/2014/06/15/foto/brasile_2014_pirlo_statistiche_da_robot_95_passaggi_completati-89041677/1/?ref=HRESS-2#1

De Rossi struck 104 out of 110 at a rate of 94.5% as well.


Does anybody know a site that would have very in-depth stats for the games?

Utopia Parkway

eagle eye wrote: »

I must be the only one who thinks Barkley is not ready for this level yet. He had his head down the whole time and doesn't have great vision as a result. He certainly has the talent to become a major star but he is far too raw right now imo.

Don't think he's the type who can control the tempo of a game with passing. Not sure he'll ever be that player to be honest. He reminds me of Gerrard (of a few years back). At his best bursting forward with the ball past defenders.

Corholio

I think people might be underestimating Uruguay a bit. They were awful against Costa Rica and completely underestimated them I think. However I doubt they can play worse again and should have Suarez back, although even that seems to be in doubt. Gargano and Arevalo aren't going to be creating much but Gerrard will have to do a lot more than he did last night to win ball against them, they will certainly be in his face during the match.

Uruguay will go from expecting to win to a must win game, not always the type of teams you'd like to be playing.

Dolph Starbeam

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

De Rossi struck 104 out of 110 at a rate of 94.5% as well.


Does anybody know a site that would have very in-depth stats for the games?

http://world-cup-2014.squawka.com/england-vs-italy/14-06-2014/world-cup/matches

Looper007

Corholio wrote: »

I think people might be underestimating Uruguay a bit. They were awful against Costa Rica and completely underestimated them I think. However I doubt they can play worse again and should have Suarez back, although even that seems to be in doubt. Gargano and Arevalo aren't going to be creating much but Gerrard will have to do a lot more than he did last night to win ball against them, they will certainly be in his face during the match.

Uruguay will go from expecting to win to a must win game, not always the type of teams you'd like to be playing.

That Uruguay midfield has been awful for a while and their defence has a weakness, you can't change that if they are first choices. Get Wilshire on that pitch and he will create, let Gerrard defend and clean stuff up.

Suarez for me won't be fit. Cavani looks lost in the centre forward position and Forlan is past it. If England change the team around a little and go all out I fancy them to win easily.

the incredible pudding

Corholio wrote: »

Gargano and Arevalo aren't going to be creating much but Gerrard will have to do a lot more than he did last night to win ball against them, they will certainly be in his face during the match.

They won't even have the ball as Uruguay don't play through the middle and tend to bypass their midfield as they seriously lack creativity in the middle of the park. Their wingers are also very average.

IF Suarez is fit, and he'll likely not be match fit, Uruguay will be completely dependent on long balls and Cavani dropping deep to give him service. I don't see their slow aged defence being able to deal with England's pace. England should be able to take them apart on the break if they play properly .

Rooney getting slaughtered here by the lads on RTE.

Plenty of valid points

_Kaiser_

rarnes1 wrote: »

Rooney getting slaughtered here by the lads on RTE.

Plenty of valid points

+1 .. hard to argue with some of the stuff being said.

Can't see Rooney getting dropped though no matter how valid the case may be.

Beefy78

Massively tempting fate here of course but I'm not worried about Suarez facing England at all. If he was close to being fit enough to cause any significant impact on Thursday he'd have got off the bench yesterday when they were 2-1 down.

He may play but I can't believe he'll be the player we've seen this season.

Liam O

Rooney was in the middle for about 5 minutes last night and his movement and timing got England a great chance that he normally at top confidence would put away. Sturridge did nothing like that the entire game and constantly tried to take on the world and lose the ball. If he's going to do that then fire him onto the wing. Should have played Welbeck behind Rooney in the middle. He's very effective at making life difficult for deep lying midfielders and defenders with his pressing. Or get rid of Welbeck or Sterling depending on preference and have Lallana in there, someone who can be creative and not allow Italy to ignore the fact that it all pace through the centre and all they had to do was stay compact.

Utopia Parkway

Liam O wrote: »

Rooney was in the middle for about 5 minutes last night and his movement and timing got England a great chance that he normally at top confidence would put away. Sturridge did nothing like that the entire game and constantly tried to take on the world and lose the ball. If he's going to do that then fire him onto the wing.

That's what Chelsea did with Sturridge and it never worked. He's not a wide attacker. He can play there but you will never get the best out of him there.

Take out Sterling? He was probably their best player. I'd imagine he'll be kept on in that position

Fescue

Liam O wrote: »

Rooney was in the middle for about 5 minutes last night and his movement and timing got England a great chance that he normally at top confidence would put away. Sturridge did nothing like that the entire game and constantly tried to take on the world and lose the ball. If he's going to do that then fire him onto the wing. Should have played Welbeck behind Rooney in the middle. He's very effective at making life difficult for deep lying midfielders and defenders with his pressing. Or get rid of Welbeck or Sterling depending on preference and have Lallana in there, someone who can be creative and not allow Italy to ignore the fact that it all pace through the centre and all they had to do was stay compact.

I think Sturridge gives England (and Liverpool) a threat in behind which opens up space for other players. Plus he scored so dropping him is unlikely.

Dropping Sturridge and Englands best player Sterling to accommodate Rooney up top with Welbeck behind is mind boggling.

efb

http://vine.co/v/MIquQEHump2 lol

Fescue

BREAKING NEWS: Football found by indigenous tribe deep in the amazon believed to be from Wayne Rooney's corner kick!

Via Twitter

mike65

Have they found Charlie Adams peno?

efb

Lol

ShooterSF

If the "supporters" in the bar I was in yesterday are a realistic sample of the support in general I'd only be delighted to see England lose the next 2 games. Bad mouthing their own players, moaning, complaining and giving lads abuse for cheering on Italy. One of my best memories is going hoarse singing and cheering on our team in a pub with a group of lads as Spain thumped us 2 years ago and then joining the Spanish fans for the rest of the night. In comparison, if I'd been among those lads yesterday I'd be disgusted.

Fescue

ShooterSF wrote: »

If the "supporters" in the bar I was in yesterday are a realistic sample of the support in general I'd only be delighted to see England lose the next 2 games. Bad mouthing their own players, moaning, complaining and giving lads abuse for cheering on Italy. One of my best memories is going hoarse singing and cheering on our team in a pub with a group of lads as Spain thumped us 2 years ago and then joining the Spanish fans for the rest of the night. In comparison, if I'd been among those lads yesterday I'd be disgusted.

They're not. English people are just as nice in general as everyone else.

ShooterSF

Fescue wrote: »

They're not. English people are just as nice in general as everyone else.

Hopefully that's the case.Will definitely pick a different bar on a Thursday. I do cheer against them in a pantomime banter way but they're the only team in the tournament likely to have large support here (in Canada) so it would be nice to have some atmosphere going in the pub.

Beefy78

Bad mouthing the players, moaning, complaining and giving abuse to opposition fans? Sounds a lot like the Irish lads sitting behind me at the Croatia game in Poznan.

There's dicks everywhere mate.

trashcan

Beefy78 wrote: »

Bad mouthing the players, moaning, complaining and giving abuse to opposition fans? Sounds a lot like the Irish lads sitting behind me at the Croatia game in Poznan.

There's dicks everywhere mate.

Oh no Beefy, they couldn't have been Irish - best fans in the world dontcha know;)

Boskowski

I'm going to get lambasted for this now I guess as apparently Scholes has turned untouchable legend since he turned 35 or whatever but I think there is a bit of a sentimental legend building thing going on around him. Presumably by Untited fans.

Whenever I saw him playing which is admittedly not exactly on a weekly basis he seemed solid, ok to good but sorry lads I never saw this greatness that people attribute to him. Whenever I saw him playing for England he was as good or as bad as any of their golden generation who never actually did anything in terms of winning or even challenging for something.

He was solid, decent, good technically (by English standards, don't mean that in a nasty way), good shot, good holder of the ball, decent distribution, a good midfielder no doubt, but he could be sometimes pretty nasty and even at the height of his career I don't remember him being mentioned with the greats of his period. Ever. Some people make him out to be this former ManU Zico/Pirlo/almost Zidane legend guy of sorts which I find a little laughable tbh.

Will I Amnt

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm going to get lambasted for this now I guess as apparently Scholes has turned untouchable legend since he turned 35 or whatever but I think there is a bit of a sentimental legend building thing going on around him. Presumably by Untited fans.

Whenever I saw him playing which is admittedly not exactly on a weekly basis he seemed solid, ok to good but sorry lads I never saw this greatness that people attribute to him. Whenever I saw him playing for England he was as good or as bad as any of their golden generation who never actually did anything in terms of winning or even challenging for something.

He was solid, decent, good technically (by English standards, don't mean that in a nasty way), good shot, good holder of the ball, decent distribution, a good midfielder no doubt, but he could be sometimes pretty nasty and even at the height of his career I don't remember him being mentioned with the greats of his period. Ever. Some people make him out to be this former ManU Zico/Pirlo/almost Zidane legend guy of sorts which I find a little laughable tbh.

Some people would say the same sort of thing about Xavi...

Boskowski

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Some people would say the same sort of thing about Xavi...

Maybe his position was a little under appreciated generally speaking in the past. The holding midfielder has only over the last 5 to 10 years become sort the controller and pacemaker of the game for some teams. Isn't it?

Before that the number 6, number 8 kinda guys were simply the workhorses, the hoovers in front of the back line who were tough, tackled like mad, could run forever and as soon as they get the ball they must give it to someone who can actually do something with it.

The difference with Xavi is he IS one of the greats of his period. He has a few international trophies to show for which Scholes doesn't have.

efb

http://youtu.be/G-q5ATuTcws?a

MisterAnarchy

Boskowski wrote: »

Maybe his position was a little under appreciated generally speaking in the past. The holding midfielder has only over the last 5 to 10 years become sort the controller ad pacemaker of the game for some teams. Isn't it?

Before that the number 6, number 8 kinda guys were simply the workhorses, the hoovers in from of the back line who were tough, tackled like mad, could run forever and as soon as they get the ball they must give it to someone who can actually do something with it.

The thing with Scholes is that he changed his game as he got older ,he changed from a primarily box to box midfielder into a holding playmaker .

His switch to playmaker ocurred after he retired from International football and once his legs had gone and he couldnt cover the ground anymore .

As a player I preferred the earlier version but in a way if he had combined the two he would have been brilliant,a playmaker with an engine.

Blackpitts

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

De Rossi struck 104 out of 110 at a rate of 94.5% as well.


Does anybody know a site that would have very in-depth stats for the games?

http://www.squawka.com/
enjoy!

Boskowski

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The thing with Scholes is that he changed his game as he got older ,he changed from a primarily box to box midfielder into a holding playmaker .

His switch to playmaker ocurred after he retired from International football and once his legs had gone and he couldnt cover the ground anymore .

As a player I preferred the earlier version but in a way if he had combined the two he would have been brilliant,a playmaker with an engine.

Actually I thought that too. Thought that he got better as a player in his thirties. But it seems as if people forget he wasn't like that all through his career. Seriously in his twenties I wouldn't have thought all that much more of him than for example - I don't know would United fans be offended if I said - Michael Carrick?

Frankie Lee

Boskowski wrote: »

Maybe his position was a little under appreciated generally speaking in the past. The holding midfielder has only over the last 5 to 10 years become sort the controller and pacemaker of the game for some teams. Isn't it?

Pep Guardiola and Redondo were deep lying playmakers before, presumably there were plenty more before my time too.

Boskowski

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Pep Guardiola and Redondo were deep lying playmakers before, presumably there were plenty more before my time too.

Funny you should say Pep. Never thought of him as a great when he was a player either.

MisterAnarchy

Boskowski wrote: »

Actually I thought that too. Thought that he got better as a player in his thirties. But it seems as if people forget he wasn't like that all through his career. Seriously in his twenties I wouldn't have thought all that much more of him than for example - I don't know would United fans be offended if I said - Michael Carrick?

Ah now ,Carrick wouldnt be fit to lace Scholes boots ,no comparison in their qualities .

Boskowski

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Ah now ,Carrick wouldnt be fit to lace Scholes boots ,no comparison in their qualities .

Fair enough. I knew I was stretching it a bit with that one.

Seaneh

Boskowski wrote: »

Funny you should say Pep. Never thought of him as a great when he was a player either.

Pep was good but he was never top tier. The best examples of the deep play maker from the 90's are Redondo and Albertini.

Pep was absolutely shiiiiiiiiite in Italy.

Frankie Lee

Seaneh wrote: »

Pep was good but he was never top tier. The best examples of the deep play maker from the 90's are Redondo and Albertini.

Pep was absolutely shiiiiiiiiite in Italy.

He was well past it by then. I wouldn't rate him anywhere near as good as Redondo either but I always loved his style of play. That being said I can't remember seeing him play too often but remember playing schoolyard football trying to imitate his style.

Liam O

Boskowski wrote: »

Actually I thought that too. Thought that he got better as a player in his thirties. But it seems as if people forget he wasn't like that all through his career. Seriously in his twenties I wouldn't have thought all that much more of him than for example - I don't know would United fans be offended if I said - Michael Carrick?

In his twenties he was more of a Lampard or Gerrard with more intelligence and timing in lieu of their power. Getting great numbers in goal terms and with Keane there was able to be like a 3rd striker at times.

PhlegmyMoses

Without starting an argument, your posts make you seem like you have no idea what kind of player Scholes was, Boskowski.

He was as good as Pirlo and Redondo.

Seaneh

Frankie Lee wrote: »

He was well past it by then. I wouldn't rate him anywhere near as good as Redondo either but I always loved his style of play. That being said I can't remember seeing him play too often but remember playing schoolyard football trying to imitate his style.

He was 30 when he moved to Brescia, 31 when he moved to Roma and 32 when he went back to Brescia. In 3 seasons in Italy he was slow, fat, lazy and pretty much useless. And he was caught doping.

He was a good player, but he was never a great player.

kryogen

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm going to get lambasted for this now I guess as apparently Scholes has turned untouchable legend since he turned 35 or whatever but I think there is a bit of a sentimental legend building thing going on around him. Presumably by Untited fans.

Whenever I saw him playing which is admittedly not exactly on a weekly basis he seemed solid, ok to good but sorry lads I never saw this greatness that people attribute to him. Whenever I saw him playing for England he was as good or as bad as any of their golden generation who never actually did anything in terms of winning or even challenging for something.

He was solid, decent, good technically (by English standards, don't mean that in a nasty way), good shot, good holder of the ball, decent distribution, a good midfielder no doubt, but he could be sometimes pretty nasty and even at the height of his career I don't remember him being mentioned with the greats of his period. Ever. Some people make him out to be this former ManU Zico/Pirlo/almost Zidane legend guy of sorts which I find a little laughable tbh.

Thanks for letting us know how you feel about him. Quite the dear diary moment.

kryogen

Boskowski wrote: »

Maybe his position was a little under appreciated generally speaking in the past. The holding midfielder has only over the last 5 to 10 years become sort the controller and pacemaker of the game for some teams. Isn't it?

Before that the number 6, number 8 kinda guys were simply the workhorses, the hoovers in front of the back line who were tough, tackled like mad, could run forever and as soon as they get the ball they must give it to someone who can actually do something with it.

The difference with Xavi is he IS one of the greats of his period. He has a few international trophies to show for which Scholes doesn't have.

Xavi didn't win international trophies alone did he? Part of one of the greatest international sides of all time, and it is arguable that Iniesta has been a bigger factor for Spain.

Doesn't mean Xavi isn't an excellent player though.

kryogen

Boskowski wrote: »

Actually I thought that too. Thought that he got better as a player in his thirties. But it seems as if people forget he wasn't like that all through his career. Seriously in his twenties I wouldn't have thought all that much more of him than for example - I don't know would United fans be offended if I said - Michael Carrick?

Even the greatest get a player evaluation wrong now and then.

gosplan

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Without starting an argument, your posts make you seem like you have no idea what kind of player Scholes was, Boskowski.

He was as good as Pirlo and Redondo.

Disagree. Don't know why I'm bothering typing this though as we'll probably never agree on this.

Scholes awesome but Pirlo awesome and more decisive. It's what made people able to underrate Scholes. He was the quiet calm engine making the team tick and though it's amazing, it's not always obvious.

Pirlo did that too but also made such an individual impact that he often seemed to win games by himself and it basically has made him impossible to overlook.

Scholes was never the best player on the team. Pirlo has nearly always been that.

kryogen

Pirlo is a far better player then Scholes ever was, but that is not a disgrace to Scholes at all

Seaneh

kryogen wrote: »

Pirlo is a far better player then Scholes ever was, but that is not a disgrace to Scholes at all

The mental thing about Pirlo is that besides 2 seasons at Milan (the season the won the league under Alegri and the season before that) he's been incredibly consistant. He's 35 and he's still as good now as he was in 2006.

764dak

efb wrote: »

@wallacemick: “@PCarrESPN: Italy completed 92.2% of passes vs England. Highest pass pct by any team in a #WorldCup game since 1966.” Forza Italia...

"England's pass completion rate against Italy was 91 percent. It's the highest they have recorded in a World Cup game."

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/number-cruncher-incredible-stats-from-england-vs-italy-1571351.html?utm_source=ref_article


Premier League and Serie A actually have the highest pass completion of the top 5 European leagues.

764dak

England got tired early on in the second half. The crosses by the English players were poor in the second half.

kryogen

Seaneh wrote: »

The mental thing about Pirlo is that besides 2 seasons at Milan (the season the won the league under Alegri and the season before that) he's been incredibly consistant. He's 35 and he's still as good now as he was in 2006.

He was definitely going stale at Milan, it was right to let him go at the time, for both parties, despite how people might look back now.

Seaneh

kryogen wrote: »

He was definitely going stale at Milan, it was right to let him go at the time, for both parties, despite how people might look back now.

I agree, I still think 100% it was the right decision.
Milan had just won the league without him, he was the wrong side of 30, had missed the guts of a season through injuries, was looking jaded and unfit since the season before and despite all that wanted a wage increase just to stay.

It made perfect sense to say "so long and thanks for the memories".

He needed a change and so did Milan.

Utopia Parkway

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm going to get lambasted for this now I guess as apparently Scholes has turned untouchable legend since he turned 35 or whatever but I think there is a bit of a sentimental legend building thing going on around him. Presumably by Untited fans.

Whenever I saw him playing which is admittedly not exactly on a weekly basis he seemed solid, ok to good but sorry lads I never saw this greatness that people attribute to him. Whenever I saw him playing for England he was as good or as bad as any of their golden generation who never actually did anything in terms of winning or even challenging for something.

He was solid, decent, good technically (by English standards, don't mean that in a nasty way), good shot, good holder of the ball, decent distribution, a good midfielder no doubt, but he could be sometimes pretty nasty and even at the height of his career I don't remember him being mentioned with the greats of his period. Ever. Some people make him out to be this former ManU Zico/Pirlo/almost Zidane legend guy of sorts which I find a little laughable tbh.

He was great for United. Undoubtably.

I saw him play a lot for England and he was never the difference between them being good, bad or indifferent. And he wasn't always on the left wing either. He played quite a bit in the centre. I think Sven just stuck him out on the left for a short spell (to accomodate Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard together) and Scholes decided to pack it in.

I mean Scholes quit international football 10 years ago. Pirlo is still Italy's best player right now despite being only 4 years younger.