World Cup 2018

It’s coming home… maybe.

Well, I am hopeful but it takes a huge leap of faith for me to believe that.

Don't really want to be a 'killjoy' but common sense tells me we haven't played a really good team yet. We lost to Belgium's reserves, albeit with a reserve team of our own.

I think Sweden are a really poor team, hardworking and honest but 'journeymen' really. When I think of the teams that have gone home and England get to play Sweden. :)

Still cannot forget that really 'shaky' period when Columbia scored and England lost their belief and composure.

Still whatever happens now it has been a success and Gareth Southgate has earned enormous respect.
 
Well, I am hopeful but it takes a huge leap of faith for me to believe that.

Don't really want to be a 'killjoy' but common sense tells me we haven't played a really good team yet. We lost to Belgium's reserves, albeit with a reserve team of our own.

I think Sweden are a really poor team, hardworking and honest but 'journeymen' really. When I think of the teams that have gone home and England get to play Sweden. :)

Still cannot forget that really 'shaky' period when Columbia scored and England lost their belief and composure.

Still whatever happens now it has been a success and Gareth Southgate has earned enormous respect.

Agree with everything you’ve said. Anything else for me now is a total bonus. Hopefully my bonus will pay dividends!
 
Agree with everything you’ve said. Anything else for me now is a total bonus. Hopefully my bonus will pay dividends!

“Agree with everything you said” If I ditch the wife, will you marry me ?
 
I agree, but he's not on his own, even some of ours started doing it in the last match. Until they are red carded for trying to cheat this will continue, and until FIFA grow a set that won't happen. Unfortunately the players have become bigger than the game, and it's the they were reminded that without the game, most of them would probably earning a month what they earn in an hour! Football is the archetypal example of money ruining a sport.

Really???? We went down, rolling around for ages after EVERY challenge???? You must have been watching a different game to me!
 
I agree with what you say about cheating. Harry Macguire threw himself on the floor and then probably realised his error and got up very quickly. Henderson got head butted and had a ‘delayed reaction’ fall. Maybe others are far worse but we need to cut it out. Sadly Ref’s are cupable, they are inclined to play on if players retain their feet. Win with humility or lose with honour.

Henderson was butted, he was correct to go down. Today Sterling could have gone down after a challenge by the keeper. To say we are even in the same league as Neymar is laughable!
 
Puzzled ? are England playing to a masterplan ‘ slow, slow, quick, quick slow ‘ but cannot get the ‘quick’ bit going ?

It worked!

A professional, relatively comfortable performance. We had more chances, we dealt with the ones they had and looked good at the back. We are a danger with most set pieces. Have beaten two decent (if not world beaters) in last 2 games, and lets remember, that Spain couldn't do that, neither Germany.
 
Really???? We went down, rolling around for ages after EVERY challenge???? You must have been watching a different game to me!

Bit like saying “we dominated possession” against Columbia, when England actually only had 51% of the possession eh.
 
Henderson was butted, he was correct to go down. Today Sterling could have gone down after a challenge by the keeper. To say we are even in the same league as Neymar is laughable!

“He was correct to go down” is that because the referee would take no action otherwise ?
 
I think if we reach the final we have a chance. A 1 off game anyone can win it.

Well, I am hopeful but it takes a huge leap of faith for me to believe that.

Don't really want to be a 'killjoy' but common sense tells me we haven't played a really good team yet. We lost to Belgium's reserves, albeit with a reserve team of our own.

I think Sweden are a really poor team, hardworking and honest but 'journeymen' really. When I think of the teams that have gone home and England get to play Sweden. :)

Still cannot forget that really 'shaky' period when Columbia scored and England lost their belief and composure.

Still whatever happens now it has been a success and Gareth Southgate has earned enormous respect.
 
So give me time to do the maths er ** 100 - 51 = give me a minute. ... 49 so if England had 51% then Columbia had 49%

That’s right England dominated possession.

So glad I paid attention during arithmatic

Shame you didn’t pay attention in English lessons then you might have got arithmetic right
:)
 
Why do people keep harping on about football going back to China? :thinking:


:ROFLMAO:
 
Thank goodness Croatia was able to come through for the win.
Why?

I've been impressed with the atmosphere created at this world cup, despite all the problems that were supposed to happen. The crowds have been great and Russia have excelled themselves and their players, on the whole, have conducted themselves well. personally I would have liked to have seen England play them in the semis, the atmosphere in the stadium would have been amazing.
 
Why do people keep harping on about football going back to China? :thinking:


:ROFLMAO:

They don't, association football (the game and rules as now played) was invented in England in the 1800s, the various round ball games prior to that weren't association football that is played now...
 
They don't, association football (the game and rules as now played) was invented in England in the 1800s, the various round ball games prior to that weren't association football that is played now...


The game originally comes from China. The English gave it rules and a name. Aside from that , it was a joke ...

Belgium to win it out for me. I do think England and Croatia is very, very close to call
 
Just please, drop sterling for the next game. He is pants!!!

I would have preferred Russia for both the atmosphere and I think they would not be as difficult as Croatia who are dangerous. Tough game but they will not be keen to play us either!!!
 
Just please, drop sterling for the next game. He is pants!!!

I would have preferred Russia for both the atmosphere and I think they would not be as difficult as Croatia who are dangerous. Tough game but they will not be keen to play us either!!!

You like me and other tv viewers have a very limited view and therefore appreciation of Sterling. Knowledgable commentators and ex-players have praised his self-less running and ability to unsettle defences with his speed. I am prepared to shelve my ‘narrow’ views and give him the benefit of the doubt. Incidentally who are you going to replace him with ? Rashford has tremendous potential but is very raw and tends to run about (at great speed) like a headless chicken. Loftus-Cheek has done very little to demand inclusion. So let’s give Gareth the benefit of the doubt, he is after all picking a winning team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Just please, drop sterling for the next game. He is pants!!!

I would have preferred Russia for both the atmosphere and I think they would not be as difficult as Croatia who are dangerous. Tough game but they will not be keen to play us either!!!


Belgium looked really dangerous playing 4-3-3 in their last game, with Lukaku, De Bruyne and Hazard up front. I would like to see Rashford, Kane and Vardy up front for England. Sterling is like a headless chicken at the moment who seems to become disorientated when near the goal.
 
I missed the game as I was travelling back from North Yorkshire so listened to it on the radio in the car.

Having watched the game this morning, as much as he irritates me, I think the inclusion of Sterling is justified. His movement creates space for others, he often has two markers, and his pace can be very useful at points in the game. However, his decision making does need to improve. That opportunity just before half time, he was in two minds, and a square pass to Kane would have sealed another goal, but he chose the more difficult option and go for goal himself.

Rashford doesn't play the same role and doesn't have as much experience. He is very direct, but often ends up running down blind alleys. That said, Rashford is more likely to score....
 
Off the pitch (and in the UK)…

So good to see the damage caused to the Paramedic car, other cars and property perpetuated by the mindless "fans". :( No arrests yet - hope the police manage to catch up with the vandals.
 
I think Sweden are a really poor team, hardworking and honest but 'journeymen' really.
It's funny how, whenever England win a match, there is this tendency for people to dismiss the opposition. If we beat them, they can't be any good.

Remember how Sweden qualified for Russia? They beat France, they finished above Holland in their group, and then they beat Italy over two legs in the play-off. It seems amazing that neither Holland nor Italy is at the World Cup, but Sweden were responsible for both of them. Then in the last couple of weeks they topped a group which contained Germany and Mexico, and they beat Switzerland who had been ranked #6 in the world coming into the tournament. That's a pretty solid set of achievements and I think calling them "journeymen" does the team a disservice.
 
It's funny how, whenever England win a match, there is this tendency for people to dismiss the opposition. If we beat them, they can't be any good.

Remember how Sweden qualified for Russia? They beat France, they finished above Holland in their group, and then they beat Italy over two legs in the play-off. It seems amazing that neither Holland nor Italy is at the World Cup, but Sweden were responsible for both of them. Then in the last couple of weeks they topped a group which contained Germany and Mexico, and they beat Switzerland who had been ranked #6 in the world coming into the tournament. That's a pretty solid set of achievements and I think calling them "journeymen" does the team a disservice.

Well, I am not that knowledgeable about Swedens football team, you are because you probably heard all your facts on Radio 5L yesterday, I heard that report. Well done on remembering the fact that Switzerland were ranked 6th in the World.

My view on the Swedish football team was based solely on their match against England.
 
Last edited:
Well, I am not that knowledgeable about Swedens football team, you are because you heard all your facts on Radio 5L yesterday, I heard that report. Well done on remembering the fact that Switzerland were ranked 6th in the World.
No, I didn't hear Radio 5L, but I didn't need to because I knew all that stuff already. I have Dutch friends and Italian friends, and I had discussed with both sets how strange it was that their country wasn't going to be at the World Cup, and in both cases it was Sweden who put them out.
My view on the Swedish football team was based solely on their match against England.
Like I said. England beat them, so they must be rubbish.
 
It's funny how, whenever England win a match, there is this tendency for people to dismiss the opposition. If we beat them, they can't be any good.

Remember how Sweden qualified for Russia? They beat France, they finished above Holland in their group, and then they beat Italy over two legs in the play-off. It seems amazing that neither Holland nor Italy is at the World Cup, but Sweden were responsible for both of them. Then in the last couple of weeks they topped a group which contained Germany and Mexico, and they beat Switzerland who had been ranked #6 in the world coming into the tournament. That's a pretty solid set of achievements and I think calling them "journeymen" does the team a disservice.

Well said, they may not have lots of stars like Brazil or France but they are a good solid team. I think we made them look average with our professionalism and tactics. That was a game we could have lost.

Even if they are 'easy' that didn't stop much 'better teams' going out to 'poor' opposition - Spain were poor against Morocco, Iran and then got beat by Russia!
 
Just please, drop sterling for the next game. He is pants!!!

Really..? I thought he did well, done his job pretty much except for not sticking the ball in the back of the net.
I'd play him.
 
Last edited:
Just please, drop sterling for the next game. He is pants!!!
Really..? I thought he did well, done his job pretty much except for not sticking the ball in the back of the net.
I'd play him.
It's interesting, isn't it. Sterling is provoking more debate than anyone else, by far.

I watched the Sweden game with my niece, who doesn't know very much about football but is keen to learn more. When Sterling muffed his one-on-one chance, I groaned aloud. Surely it doesn't really matter, she said, because he was offside anyway? (She's a fast learner.) As a former striker myself I explained that it does matter, you have to beat the keeper and put it in the net even if it is disallowed. Because then next time, when it's not offside, you know you can beat him and just as importantly, he knows you can beat him. Little did I imagine that Sterling would prove my point barely two minutes later!

And yet... and yet... Southgate sticks with him, and I think Southgate knows what he's doing, and why - and I think he has done well not to get dragged too much into discussing the reasons behind his selections.

I think the reason he plays Sterling are that:
1. He drags defenders all over the place, and that wears them down mentally and creates opportunities for gaps in their coverage.
2. He gets us a long way up the pitch quickly, which means we're pressing to regain possession in their half rather than in ours. (Statistically, on average we have regained possession further up the pitch than 30 of the other 31 teams in the competition!)
3. He wins a fair number of free kicks and corners, and they are great opportunities for us to score.

So he's not scoring goals and he's not getting any direct assists, but I recognise (somewhat grudgingly, since I'm a big fan of Rashford) that he's probably doing a good - if mostly unnoticed - job for the team. Which is perfectly on keeping with Southgate's overall approach.
 
It's interesting, isn't it. Sterling is provoking more debate than anyone else, by far.

I watched the Sweden game with my niece, who doesn't know very much about football but is keen to learn more. When Sterling muffed his one-on-one chance, I groaned aloud. Surely it doesn't really matter, she said, because he was offside anyway? (She's a fast learner.) As a former striker myself I explained that it does matter, you have to beat the keeper and put it in the net even if it is disallowed. Because then next time, when it's not offside, you know you can beat him and just as importantly, he knows you can beat him. Little did I imagine that Sterling would prove my point barely two minutes later!

And yet... and yet... Southgate sticks with him, and I think Southgate knows what he's doing, and why - and I think he has done well not to get dragged too much into discussing the reasons behind his selections.

I think the reason he plays Sterling are that:
1. He drags defenders all over the place, and that wears them down mentally and creates opportunities for gaps in their coverage.
2. He gets us a long way up the pitch quickly, which means we're pressing to regain possession in their half rather than in ours. (Statistically, on average we have regained possession further up the pitch than 30 of the other 31 teams in the competition!)
3. He wins a fair number of free kicks and corners, and they are great opportunities for us to score.

So he's not scoring goals and he's not getting any direct assists, but I recognise (somewhat grudgingly, since I'm a big fan of Rashford) that he's probably doing a good - if mostly unnoticed - job for the team. Which is perfectly on keeping with Southgate's overall approach.


As I mentioned earlier:

Having watched the game this morning, as much as he irritates me, I think the inclusion of Sterling is justified. His movement creates space for others, he often has two markers, and his pace can be very useful at points in the game.

But I also said.....

However, his decision making does need to improve. That opportunity just before half time, he was in two minds, and a square pass to Kane would have sealed another goal, but he chose the more difficult option and go for goal himself.

I had the benefit of knowing the score, so I could relax when I watched the game. Thing is, you can't see all his off the ball movement on the TV, as it's often away from the cameras.

I said similar things about Theo Walcott. What you saw on TV was nothing like what he actually did on the pitch, but being a season ticket holder, I had the fortune to see what others didn't. I think Sterling will come good, hopefully this week :)
 
It's interesting, isn't it. Sterling is provoking more debate than anyone else, by far.

I watched the Sweden game with my niece, who doesn't know very much about football but is keen to learn more. When Sterling muffed his one-on-one chance, I groaned aloud. Surely it doesn't really matter, she said, because he was offside anyway? (She's a fast learner.) As a former striker myself I explained that it does matter, you have to beat the keeper and put it in the net even if it is disallowed. Because then next time, when it's not offside, you know you can beat him and just as importantly, he knows you can beat him. Little did I imagine that Sterling would prove my point barely two minutes later!

And yet... and yet... Southgate sticks with him, and I think Southgate knows what he's doing, and why - and I think he has done well not to get dragged too much into discussing the reasons behind his selections.

I think the reason he plays Sterling are that:
1. He drags defenders all over the place, and that wears them down mentally and creates opportunities for gaps in their coverage.
2. He gets us a long way up the pitch quickly, which means we're pressing to regain possession in their half rather than in ours. (Statistically, on average we have regained possession further up the pitch than 30 of the other 31 teams in the competition!)
3. He wins a fair number of free kicks and corners, and they are great opportunities for us to score.

So he's not scoring goals and he's not getting any direct assists, but I recognise (somewhat grudgingly, since I'm a big fan of Rashford) that he's probably doing a good - if mostly unnoticed - job for the team. Which is perfectly on keeping with Southgate's overall approach.

Fair points, I think he does drag players out and creates space for others and does make a nuisance of himself. Shame he cant seem to score and cannot make a decision as he had a great season with City. To be fair, Rashford and Loftus Cheek had a chance against Belgium and fluffed it.
 
Danny Murphy - what a s*** commentary, does he fancy Mbappe or something???

The way he is going on you would think he has a hat trick and 2 assists!!
 
Would love Mbappe in my team though... Looks like he could show up Naymar at PSG next year.

France through, to be honest, if we get through tomorrow, I would rather play France than Belgium, which was like a Prem League All Star team tonight... I would hazard a guess that the EPL was the most represented league at the WC.
 
... Belgium, which was like a Prem League All Star team tonight... I would hazard a guess that the EPL was the most represented league at the WC.
The four semi finalists have a total of 92 players in their squads. Of those 92:
* 40 play in the EPL
* 12 play in La Liga
* 12 play in Ligue 1
* 9 play in the Bundesliga
* 8 play in Serie A
... and 11 don't play in one of the top 5 leagues.

The most represented club in the semi final squads seems to be Tottenham, with 9. Then Manchester United and Manchester City with 7 each, then Chelsea with 5.

In the World Cup as a whole, the 32 countries had 736 players in their squads:
* 108 play in the EPL (plus 21 more in the Championship)
* 78 play in La Liga (Primera Division only)
* 62 play in the Bundesliga
* 58 play in Serie A
* 47 play in Ligue 1

So yeah, basically the semi finals are the EPL show.
 
Back
Top