Come on ENGLAND

[Peckris]

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.

[DaveG38]

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.

[PWA 1967]

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 July 13, 2018 by PWA 1967

[davidrj]

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.

[Peckris]

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.

[DaveG38]

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. 

[DaveG38]

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.

[PWA 1967]

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 July 13, 2018 by PWA 1967

[Peckris]

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? 

[1949threepence]

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. 

  

[PWA 1967]

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 

[1949threepence]

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

Edited July 16, 2018 by 1949threepence

[Peckris]

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.)