Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
PWA 1967

Come on ENGLAND

Recommended Posts

Oh well at least it was obvious they tried this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is now the play-off for third place. England still has a chance to achieve their best World Cup performance since 1966!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think as a very obvious outsider to this that you all should be very proud of what they achieved and I think that young manager showed a wisdom and philosophy that has been lacking in a lot of football for many years.  I have to admit a sense of pride listening to him over the last few weeks.  I hope it impacts on all things football over the coming years ....but well done 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Il vient chez-ils, vient chez-ils, enfin football vient chez-ils :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to inject a dose of realism into assessing England's performance. Yes, they reached the semi-finals, and that represents a pretty fair achievement, until you start to look at the manner of their progression.

Firstly, the win over Tunisia, a very average footballing nation, was close and not very convincing. Then there was Panama. Yes, a good thumping great score, but scarcely unexpected against such a third rate team. Next Belgium - the battle of the second teams. Even so, a 1-0 loss wasn't exactly a great result, but it did put England into the 'easier' half of the draw.

From the group stage, England managed a pretty poor performance against Columbia, scraping through on the penalties - again hardly a convincing win. The Sweden match was better and the 2-0 win was deserved, but England weren't exactly playing a top team in Sweden, so winning was not a great achievement.

When they did come up against some decent opposition, as they did for the first time in Croatia, they failed. Their second half performance was woeful, as was their play during extra time. Basically, they were outplayed by a very mediocre team. 

In the Tunisia, Columbia and Croatia games they managed to turn a winning position into a losing or drawing one by slackening off and giving the appearence of thinking that the games were won.

So, they did well to get where they did, but it was the easiest route with no real challenging teams to have to overcome. Based on this, I don't share the euphoria about the England performance as everyone else does. I don't think they were any better than earlier England teams - they just had an easier ride and a bit more luck. As I said in an earlier post, England never fail to disappoint, and this World Cup was no different really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveG38 said:

I think we need to inject a dose of realism into assessing England's performance. Yes, they reached the semi-finals, and that represents a pretty fair achievement, until you start to look at the manner of their progression.

Firstly, the win over Tunisia, a very average footballing nation, was close and not very convincing. Then there was Panama. Yes, a good thumping great score, but scarcely unexpected against such a third rate team. Next Belgium - the battle of the second teams. Even so, a 1-0 loss wasn't exactly a great result, but it did put England into the 'easier' half of the draw.

From the group stage, England managed a pretty poor performance against Columbia, scraping through on the penalties - again hardly a convincing win. The Sweden match was better and the 2-0 win was deserved, but England weren't exactly playing a top team in Sweden, so winning was not a great achievement.

When they did come up against some decent opposition, as they did for the first time in Croatia, they failed. Their second half performance was woeful, as was their play during extra time. Basically, they were outplayed by a very mediocre team. 

In the Tunisia, Columbia and Croatia games they managed to turn a winning position into a losing or drawing one by slackening off and giving the appearence of thinking that the games were won.

So, they did well to get where they did, but it was the easiest route with no real challenging teams to have to overcome. Based on this, I don't share the euphoria about the England performance as everyone else does. I don't think they were any better than earlier England teams - they just had an easier ride and a bit more luck. As I said in an earlier post, England never fail to disappoint, and this World Cup was no different really.

Unfortunately one thing you've omitted - and this is important - is how poorly the 'big' teams did: Germany, Spain, and Argentina especially, and even Brazil. So before saying how easy it was for England (and yes, comparatively it was), there were so-called 'better' teams that did far worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Croatia game, it was obvious we needed a second goal. If we'd got that in the first half when we were on top, game over.

But it wasn't to be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

With the Croatia game, it was obvious we needed a second goal. If we'd got that in the first half when we were on top, game over.

But it wasn't to be.  

Yes - the one single criticism I have of this England team is that they create lots of chances but put too few of them away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Peckris said:

Unfortunately one thing you've omitted - and this is important - is how poorly the 'big' teams did: Germany, Spain, and Argentina especially, and even Brazil. So before saying how easy it was for England (and yes, comparatively it was), there were so-called 'better' teams that did far worse.

Yes, other 'good' teams did poorly in this World Cup, but that is not relevant to how well England played and the results they achieved. Arguably, if some of those other teams had done better and England had to play them then they would have gone out at an earlier stage. As it is the only quality side England played was Croatia and they failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People and teams dont fail in sport they take part and sometimes lose.

Some teams and individuals may be better however they are the small majority.Ask any boxer a good mate of mine has just retired after fifty two professional fights and didnt win one, but put good wages on the table that allowed him to look after his family.

Some people give everything they have ,yes they may lose but still be given a hat off .

To say if we had met other teams we would of gone out earlier IMO just seems unfair and also not relevant.

Maybe Muhammad Ali , Sugar ray leonard , Sugar ray robinson and Mike Tyson were not very good as they lost and you consider that to be failure.

As i mentioned in an earlier post if we had won 10-0 in the final some people would of still not been happy and said it should of been 11.

All good fun and enjoyable watching :)

 

 

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

 

To say if we had met other teams we would of gone out earlier IMO just seems unfair and also not relevant.

 

All you can do is perform well with the opposition you are dealt on the day. The performance of others is irrelevant unless you meet them in a later round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

Yes, other 'good' teams did poorly in this World Cup, but that is not relevant to how well England played and the results they achieved. Arguably, if some of those other teams had done better and England had to play them then they would have gone out at an earlier stage. As it is the only quality side England played was Croatia and they failed.

Define 'quality'? I believe Sweden may be ranked higher than England. And Colombia aren't pushovers either. I actually thought England played very well - a lot of one-touch play which found the man, creativity and pace  going forward, a good goalie, and a very reasonable defence. The biggest drawback was their inability to convert chances into goals. 

As for Croatia, they put out Argentina - Aguero, Messi, di Maria, Higuain, Mascherano, and all - so can't be considered lightly. As it is, England could have beaten them - indeed were looking likely to in the first half - if they'd put away a couple of chances; Croatia snaffled theirs and in the end 2-1 was fair enough, though it could easily have been 2-1 the other way, such is football.

We would most likely have lost to France had we made it to the Final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PWA 1967 said:

People and teams dont fail in sport they take part and sometimes lose.

Some teams and individuals may be better however they are the small majority.Ask any boxer a good mate of mine has just retired after fifty two professional fights and didnt win one, but put good wages on the table that allowed him to look after his family.

Some people give everything they have ,yes they may lose but still be given a hat off .

To say if we had met other teams we would of gone out earlier IMO just seems unfair and also not relevant.

Maybe Muhammad Ali , Sugar ray leonard , Sugar ray robinson and Mike Tyson were not very good as they lost and you consider that to be failure.

As i mentioned in an earlier post if we had won 10-0 in the final some people would of still not been happy and said it should of been 11.

All good fun and enjoyable watching :)

 

 

Surely losing in sport IS failure? It sure isn't succcess is it? 

I don't agree with your comment about fairness regarding whether England would have gone out had they met other teams. Its simply not about whether the comment is fair or not, although I would argue that it is if based on a realistic assessment of England's play in the tournament, its just an opinion, with as much value as anybody else's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peckris said:

Define 'quality'? I believe Sweden may be ranked higher than England. And Colombia aren't pushovers either. I actually thought England played very well - a lot of one-touch play which found the man, creativity and pace  going forward, a good goalie, and a very reasonable defence. The biggest drawback was their inability to convert chances into goals. 

As for Croatia, they put out Argentina - Aguero, Messi, di Maria, Higuain, Mascherano, and all - so can't be considered lightly. As it is, England could have beaten them - indeed were looking likely to in the first half - if they'd put away a couple of chances; Croatia snaffled theirs and in the end 2-1 was fair enough, though it could easily have been 2-1 the other way, such is football.

We would most likely have lost to France had we made it to the Final.

According to FIFA England are ranked above Croatia, Columbia and Sweden, although not by much. Sorry, but I had to laugh at your comment about England's drawback being their inability to convert chances. The whole point of the game isn't to play well or have a good goalie/defence, its to score goals and that means converting chances. Its the key drawback - and as I said England failed, as they always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure is a word for people who dont have a go regardless of what it may be and IMO success in sport would not be acheivable without competition.

We are all different and in sport if everyone was as good as the stars they would all be average.

People may often lose and comeback stronger and better in sport.

My comments were not based on you Dave or the post you made ,just more that we live in a country were alot of people will be negative of others .

If loosing in sport is failure thats a word you may use but i choose not to :)

Thirty one teams who got to the group stages have failed in this world cup from your comments..................They all should of in there opinion done better but there will be only ever one winner.

Maybe we should concentrate on the good bits rather than the negatives which are easy to find.

Yes your opinion is as valuable as anyone elses but please dont apply for the England managers job should it ever become available.

Pete.

 

 

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

According to FIFA England are ranked above Croatia, Columbia and Sweden, although not by much. Sorry, but I had to laugh at your comment about England's drawback being their inability to convert chances. The whole point of the game isn't to play well or have a good goalie/defence, its to score goals and that means converting chances. Its the key drawback - and as I said England failed, as they always do.

Wrong. They failed but not "as" they always do. They normally fail without playing creative enterprising skillful football. They made a lot of friends this time round, and got further than they usually do. They simply didn't look like any England side of recent years, not even Glenn Hoddle's 1998 side. Aren't you just being a bit cynical? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They came up short on this occasion, but we have to stick with this manager and the nucleus of the team he has created. He's going places.

Watch out for the Euros in 2020. 

  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

They came up short on this occasion, but we have to stick with this manager and the nucleus of the team he has created. He's going places.

Watch out for the Euros in 2020. 

  

100 % Spot on Mike :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southgate tube station has been temporarily renamed "Gareth Southgate" tube station - link to story

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France did deserve to win, no question, but there is absolutely no way they should have gone in 2-1 up at half time : the free kick that led to the own goal was a joke - the Croatian player's hand lightly brushed the French player's torso - and the penalty should not have been awarded either - if there was any doubt after VAR (and there was plenty) then he should have stuck to his original decision, i.e. "umpire's call".

England would have been hammered by that French team. How do you cope with Mbappé, and Pogba on song? (Let's hope that Mbappé fails to be signed by Man Utd.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×