Anyone disappointed by the game and result? It's getting looked upon as generally very positive considering the supposed difficulty of the opponents, but I'm left feeling a bit disappointed that yet again it's England facing a decent team that we couldn't beat, and let's be fair if we had been more adventurous we very well could have beaten them.
After taking the lead, I thought the perceived Hodgson tactics of sitting back and defending might just get us through. Not to be. What is it about England, where no matter who the manager, we start off taking the lead in the first match of a major competition against a semi-decent team, only to lose it?
I'd like to say I feel confident we'll get out the group, only with what Ukraine did, and our own lack of creating chances I wouldn't put money on us beating both Sweden and Ukraine.
Thoughts?
England still can't beat a decent team
posted on 12/6/12
our tactics were extremely similar to Denmark.
except we didn't attack and if the ball ended up in their half by fluke coincidence, we were offside
I'm happy in all honesty. `The result was brilliant.
I'm just not going to sugarcoat the sheep's poo after it's had a night of vindaloo and lager.
posted on 12/6/12
I do agree that we did not agree as much as we probably all would like, but hopefully that comes throughout the tournament. All in all solid performance, not special by any means.
posted on 12/6/12
>>All in all solid performance, not special by any means.
in defence it was job done
not memorable but a good result
posted on 12/6/12
U6282 Don_tottenham
"It is nothing like Fulham going to united and drawing! You give France way too much credit. In all honesty I don't think that there is too much between the 2 teams. I would put us both in the 2nd tier of teams in this competition with them slightly ahead of us but not by much."
Yes it is. We are an average side now and the quicker supporters like you actually realise this the better. You have this blinded view like the english press have in the past that we are this superior nation at football because we are england. One look at the line up yesterday proved one thing and that is this current england set up is extremely average. France are an excellent team who are now unbeaten in 22 games, they have top class players all over and we got a fantastic draw from it. Saying theres not to much between us and France is absolute bulls hit. They p iss all over us in terms of quality but we held our own and put in a solid performance to snuff them out. They were clearly the better side but we made them resort to long shots. We are an average side and not on the same level as the french, get that in you're mind mate.
posted on 12/6/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/6/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/6/12
Don_tottenham
I clearly didnt say we are a superior footballing nation. I said that I believe we are both in the 2nd tier of the tournament. I just think that people sometimes forget that there is more to football than being really good on the ball and keeping possession in front of the opposition defence for 10 minutes at a time. We defended incredibly well as a unit and have genuine pace on the break yet people seem to dismiss that.
Keeping posession for long periods of time and slow build up play has never been our game and it shouldn't be. We obviously aren't one of the best teams in the tournament but people need to give more credit to the way we defended and can sometimes hit teams on the break. To me that is often more entertaining to watch than Spain tippy tappying it around for 10 minutes. Maybe I am biased because I was always a defender. I dont know!
posted on 12/6/12
We've gone in to tournaments before being convinced by the media and then convincing ourselves that England were serious contenders for glory, only to watch shambolic performances and a humiliating exit. Last night was 1 of the best tournament performances we have seen in a long time.
Considering there were rumblings about the lack of experience in the squad, I thought a lot of maturity was shown by the young players and those others lacking in international experience last night.
There is room for some optimism for the organisation and discipline of the team and Rooney to come back. However my concern is that it's fine to have the main aim of keeping tight against good teams, frustrate them and nick a goal on the break or from a set piece due to quality from our attacking minded players. However, how will things play out against Sweden and Ukraine with these tactics, when we will be expected and need to win? Surely we need to be more adventurous? I would like to see Defoe and Welbeck up front against Sweden, with Young and Walcott on the wings, with Rooney replacing Defoe against Ukraine. I think such attacking threat will worry Sweden, who will really need to beat us. Being more defensive will play more in to Sweden's hands.
posted on 12/6/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/6/12
God knows how people can see that as positive other than not losing.
Us and Greece were officially the least offensive sides in the first round of matches and both poorest in passing stats, with England only having 3 shots on target all match. We were also the 2nd lowest in terms of possession, just 34%.
Most fans knew it would be Greece04 updated to England12, but the stats are scarily similar from round 1.
Hodgson was always going to set us back years, and has started off just that way i.e. two banks of 4 defending in a 442, showing no real desire to go forward, no creation, and hoping to nick a goal as we have in the last 3 games, and probably from a set piece. Pretty disgraceful approach from a footballing nation such as ours that considers itself as one of the elite nations, and ranked 6th in the World, let alone Europe.
I genuinely hope this anti-football gets the results it deserves. Any success will just encourage Hodgson and the FA, just look how they've reacted to the first game!