The World Cup Thread (16 Viewers)

[SIR ERNIE]

I want to win games, but I want to get further in the tournament more.

Colombia is a challenge, but one we are capable of. I've watched all of their games and I think if we play like we can we will win. We must give 100% though and take nothing for granted.

If we go out in the quarters I would think a lot of people would be disappointed. That would have a strong chance of happening if we drew Brazil.

People are saying we need to be playing big teams, but then all of a sudden we get Colombia and people are acting as if they are the best in the world and we are stupid for taking that route. It is standard hypocrisy because some individuals want to be angry at the fact we didn't particularly try against Belgium.

I don't care to be honest. We have a winnable route to the semis and if we perform like we have shown then we can do it. Have a bit of faith!

Southgate realises that there are probably at least six teams left in who are stronger and more experienced than his inexperienced England side. Most of those teams are in the top half of the draw.

As his challenge is to take England as far as he can in the tournament, it makes total sense that he tries to keep away from the best teams. Don't see how anyone can argue with that.

Yes it means we probably have a tougher last 16 match but it’s still the right call. He was right to play his second team last night because he now has a fresh, confident first team for Colombia. It’s still a 50/50 match in my opinion which could go either way but after that you’ve got to rate our chances better than evens to reach the semis. He's playing the percentages.

 

---

[SIR ERNIE]

No one claimed a place in the Belgium team either - reality is this is similar to 1990 when we played Cameroon and a poor Belgium team to progress to the Semis - its the best option by a mile. You are a master of conundrums. Brazil may lose to Mexico and Japan are a better team to play than Colombia - the same Japan that beat Colombia. Playing Spain (so they clearly are nailed on to win both games) in the semis is better than Brazil in the quarters because its a one off hit to make the final.

Momentum is another annoying buzzword as well. Italy in 1982 won the World Cup without winning any of the first Group Games. England went out unbeaten after five games including beating France and drawing with a German team who had lost to Algeria but made the final

Yes the momentum argument is a nonsense. You only need to go back two years to the Euros. Portugal didn't win a game in their group, finished third behind Hungary and Iceland, so no momentum there, yet go on to win it.

 

[Liquid Gold]

One more win and we'll have reached the very maximum I thought was possible in this tournament with the opportunity to progress further. If we made the semi then it would have to go down as a complete success. Equalling the best finish we've ever had at a world cup outside England with this group of players.

 

[xcraigx]

I can't blame Southgate for making changes last night, he's a clever guy and knows finishing 2nd in the group is the best chance we have of getting beyond the 1/4 finals. I was very disappointed in just how average our second string is though. I really thought a few would have put on a show to give the manager a nice selection problem. Hopefully we don't encounter any injuries because there really is very little back up.

 

[ccfchoi87]

Hmmm. Twisting the reality yet again I see.

Japan DID beat Colombia. But didn't Colombia play practically the entire game with just 10 men? Pretty much the whole match in its entirety. Conveniently missed that part of the tale out I see.

And on the Belgium thing, a lot of people last night were saying that many of their players HAD enhanced their prospects of getting picked.

Out of interest, which Belgium players do you think gave Martinez something to think about?

 

[Otis]

Out of interest, which Belgium players do you think gave Martinez something to think about?

Wasn't paying that much attention personally. Was concentrating on England's huffing and puffing too much.

Was just listening to people's and players' and managers' views after the game.

The centre backs I think played well enough, but in saying that I find Jamie Vardy a bit of a headless chicken anyway.

Fellani caused us some problems. Can't fail to notice him because of his hair though.

 

[Mcbean]

Hmmm. Twisting the reality yet again I see.

Japan DID beat Colombia. But didn't Colombia play practically the entire game with just 10 men? Pretty much the whole match in its entirety. Conveniently missed that part of the tale out I see.

And on the Belgium thing, a lot of people last night were saying that many of their players HAD enhanced their prospects of getting picked.

I thought Hazard looks a bit uglier !

 

[wingy]

Out of interest, which Belgium players do you think gave Martinez something to think about?

Baty whatever his name is?
Don't know If he's an original selective,on last night I'd have to assume so .

 

[Mcbean]

Fellaini is a thug !

 

[Otis]

Baty whatever his name is?
Don't know If he's an original selective,on last night I'd have to assume so .

Yeah, beleive he is.

 

[wingy]

Yeah, beleive he is.

Funny after they scored and he kicked the ball on to the post bounced back and hit him in the fizzog.

 

[Otis]

Funny after they scored and he kicked the ball on to the post bounced back and hit him in the fizzog.

Some of our players could have done with a ball or too being kicked in their face.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It's annoying because the players that played this game won't get picked for the next and it will back to the original starting XI.

There are one or two from that original starting XI that have been suspect. I would have been looking to replace them with other players. Not rest them for a game and let the other half of the squad play underwhelmingly so the original set get re-picked for the next round with a few uncertainties within them.

I suppose Southgate needed to see what other players brought to the table. Rashford, Dier, Rose and Cahill in particular were all close calls for the original Starting 11. I thought Cahill and Rose did themselves justice. Dier on the other hand, he is half the ‘pivot’ or ‘quarterback’ Henderson is. Who is statistically England’s best midfielder by far and has proved the naysayers wrong thus far. As for Rashford, 2020 will be his tournament, and I’d have Vardy above him in the pecking order. Another player who didn’t play badly, but had no service and will undoubtedly benefit from Henderson’s direct passes behind the defensive line.

A couple of other points I’d like to touch on, we needed to get the rest of the squad primed for any potential involvement in the knockout stages. Had we played a near-full strength side again, then substitutes underperform when required — Southgate gets it in the neck then. Again, had we risked, for arguments sake, Kane, Lingard or Henderson and any of them gets injured in a game where winning wasn’t imperative, in fact, potentially desirable, he’d get criticised for that. Our ‘second string’ would look a lot better had Oxlade-Chamberlain been fit because our midfield lack directness — Delph and Dier in the same midfield slowed us down and we had no

As for the original starting lineup, Southgate has got it spot on. In fact, last night proved Southgate has been right with Sterling > Rashford and Henderson > Dier. Player for player we don’t have a better squad or Starting 11 than Belgium, and our objective this World Cup was to reach the quarter final, imo. With Germany out of the equation, reaching the semi-final is a real possibility. That, for me, will do wonders for the national psyche as well as a huge confidence boost for a young squad. With Spain looking very average, there’s a real possibility Croatia get to the semi-finals (they beat Spain in Euro 2016) so who knows what could happen?!

 

[Otis]

Yes the momentum argument is a nonsense.

Better tell them at the Beeb then. They mention it twice here and call it a 'crucial commodity.

Just saying, like.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I suppose Southgate needed to see what other players brought to the table. Rashford, Dier, Rose and Cahill in particular were all close calls for the original Starting 11. I thought Cahill and Rose did themselves justice. Dier on the other hand, he is half the ‘pivot’ or ‘quarterback’ Henderson is. Who is statistically England’s best midfielder by far and has proved the naysayers wrong thus far. As for Rashford, 2020 will be his tournament, and I’d have Vardy above him in the pecking order. Another player who didn’t play badly, but had no service and will undoubtedly benefit from Henderson’s direct passes behind the defensive line.

A couple of other points I’d like to touch on, we needed to get the rest of the squad primed for any potential involvement in the knockout stages. Had we played a near-full strength side again, then substitutes underperform when required — Southgate gets it in the neck then. Again, had we risked, for arguments sake, Kane, Lingard or Henderson and any of them gets injured in a game where winning wasn’t imperative, in fact, potentially desirable, he’d get criticised for that. Our ‘second string’ would look a lot better had Oxlade-Chamberlain been fit because our midfield lack directness — Delph and Dier in the same midfield slowed us down and we had no

As for the original starting lineup, Southgate has got it spot on. In fact, last night proved Southgate has been right with Sterling > Rashford and Henderson > Dier. Player for player we don’t have a better squad or Starting 11 than Belgium, and our objective this World Cup was to reach the quarter final, imo. With Germany out of the equation, reaching the semi-final is a real possibility. That, for me, will do wonders for the national psyche as well as a huge confidence boost for a young squad. With Spain looking very average, there’s a real possibility Croatia get to the semi-finals (they beat Spain in Euro 2016) so who knows what could happen?!

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with the Sterling/Rashford bit.

The former has been poor in an England shirt for 6 and a half years, the latter has had one average game playing with B team players. I think when he has come on in other games he has definitely had better impact than Sterling. I think if we picked the same team but included him instead, we would be better. I am worried this will be our downfall.

 

[Otis]

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with the Sterling/Rashford bit.

The former has been poor in an England shirt for 6 and a half years, the latter has had one average game playing with B team players. I think when he has come on in other games he has definitely had better impact than Sterling. I think if we picked the same team but included him instead, we would be better. I am worried this will be our downfall.

Defenders and our keeper will be our downfall I think.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with the Sterling/Rashford bit.

The former has been poor in an England shirt for 6 and a half years, the latter has had one average game playing with B team players. I think when he has come on in other games he has definitely had better impact than Sterling. I think if we picked the same team but included him instead, we would be better. I am worried this will be our downfall.

Sterling only played his first competitive game for England in Brazil 4 years ago. He played in two friendlies before then and was man of the match in one. Saying he's been below par for 6 and half years is well off the mark.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Southgate realises that there are probably at least six teams left in who are stronger and more experienced than his inexperienced England side. Most of those teams are in the top half of the draw.

As his challenge is to take England as far as he can in the tournament, it makes total sense that he tries to keep away from the best teams. Don't see how anyone can argue with that.

Yes it means we probably have a tougher last 16 match but it’s still the right call. He was right to play his second team last night because he now has a fresh, confident first team for Colombia. It’s still a 50/50 match in my opinion which could go either way but after that you’ve got to rate our chances better than evens to reach the semis. He's playing the percentages.

tbh the way thr group fell, it probably made it a bit harder of a call. A nice easy game v Japan effectively guarantees a quarter final place, and that'd be a half decent world cup, along with a shot at a semi-final with one good performance in a knockout round.

Colombia worry me, I fear they might do us over and if we go out last 16, that's not so good!

That being said, would I have rested a load of players? Probably, so not overly disappointed and, even if we lose to Colombia, I can fully understand the call.

 

[Otis]

tbh the way thr group fell, it probably made it a bit harder of a call. A nice easy game v Japan effectively guarantees a quarter final place, and that'd be a half decent world cup, along with a shot at a semi-final with one good performance in a knockout round.

Colombia worry me, I fear they might do us over and if we go out last 16, that's not so good!

That being said, would I have rested a load of players? Probably, so not overly disappointed and, even if we lose to Colombia, I can fully understand the call.

Yup. Good post, NW.

And this talk of paths and routes is going to look mightily dumb it we now lose to Colombia. It will result in a lot of chat about something that was never, ever going to happen.

Japan are clearly the weaker team of the two and I think we would be pretty much guaranteed that QF place. Colombia will be a much tougher matchup.

Think we are going to need VAR working at its very best, because I think we are going to get all sorts of dives and injury feigning and shirt pulling etc.

Did notice in the game yesterday one Colombian player deliberately run into an opposing player and then went down like a sack of spuds looking for a foul. Farcical.

 

[Johnnythespider]

It's difficult to judge players on last night's Game, there were so many changes to the line up. It may have been different if 2 or 3 had been slotted into the starting 11, Loftus - Cheek for example may have looked better if he was playing with Kane and Lingard, rather than in a team trying to hit long balls behind the Belgian defence for Vardy and Rashford to run onto. Rashford looked short on confidence, not surprising considering how he has been used by Murino, I would start Rose but that has more to do with a dislike of young than how he played last night. Anyway at the start of the tournament I said 1 game at a time, so I'm not looking further than Columbia at the minute, I'm not too dissapointed with last nights result other than always hoping England win every game.
Edit- talking of Rashford I think he should look for a new club where he starts the majority of games.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Sterling only played his first competitive game for England in Brazil 4 years ago. He played in two friendlies before then and was man of the match in one. Saying he's been below par for 6 and half years is well off the mark.

I was at his full competitive debut. That was in Stockholm, November 2012.

6 and a half years have now gone by and I have seen one or two good performances the entire time. You can twist it to make it sound like he's just getting going, but the reality is it is more likely sticking with him will come back and bite us at this point.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

For those moaning about the fact we have to play Colombia (when it could have been Japan)...

Just stop complaining for a minute. If we beat Colombia and get into the quarter final, and subsequently the semi final, you can all buy me a pint. If we don't then that's fair enough, but probably we don't deserve to get that far if we cannot beat Colombia in the quarters anyway.

I believe this will turn out to be a master stroke.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I was at his full competitive debut. That was in Stockholm, November 2012.

6 and a half years have now gone by and I have seen one or two good performances the entire time. You can twist it to make it sound like he's just getting going, but the reality is it is more likely sticking with him will come back and bite us at this point.

I'd stick with him as much because Rashford didn't take his chance to move ahead of him last night.

He hasn't done it for England yet, seems to be the modern day John Barnes.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I would rather get knocked out in a big game against Brazil / France / Spain than I would against Colombia. I think Southgate's selection was defeatist and unfair on the fans who have spent significant amounts to follow them.
The fact that Belgium's second string beat ours at a canter is worrying.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Good post, but I'm not sure I agree with the Sterling/Rashford bit.

The former has been poor in an England shirt for 6 and a half years, the latter has had one average game playing with B team players. I think when he has come on in other games he has definitely had better impact than Sterling. I think if we picked the same team but included him instead, we would be better. I am worried this will be our downfall.

Sterling’s England career has mainly played under Hodgson, which is possibly the worst England manager ever in major tournaments. No one played well under him — look at Kane now, who was on corners and 0 goals in 2016!

Rashford has played well for England when called upon, but that miss versus Belgium should raise concerns. That was a miss in a game with zero consequence, with little to no pressure — now imagine putting him in that same position in an important knockout game. Sterling miss v Panama was equally as bad, but he’s hardly known for his headers now. This is balanced with his link up play for Lingard’s goal. At this point in his career, Rashford neither has the link up play of Sterling nor the finishing ability of Vardy.

Sterling and Vardy have just come off impressive seasons for their clubs, whereas Rashford is still in the development stage of his career, and hasn’t been as good as the other two. The real debate should be Vardy or Sterling, and for me, Sterling edges it, just.

Rashford’s time will come.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Sterling’s England career has mainly played under Hodgson, which is possibly the worst England manager ever in major tournaments. No one played well under him — look at Kane now, who was on corners and 0 goals in 2016!

Rashford has played well for England when called upon, but that miss versus Belgium should raise concerns. That was a miss in a game with zero consequence, with little to no pressure — now imagine putting him in that same position in an important knockout game. Sterling miss v Panama was equally as bad, but he’s hardly known for his headers now. This is balanced with his link up play for Lingard’s goal. At this point in his career, Rashford neither has the link up play of Sterling nor the finishing ability of Vardy.

Sterling and Vardy have just come off impressive seasons for their clubs, whereas Rashford is still in the development stage of his career, and hasn’t been as good as the other two. The real debate should be Vardy or Sterling, and for me, Sterling edges it, just.

Rashford’s time will come.

Vardy is shite. Nowhere near international level.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Vardy is shite. Nowhere near international level.

He certainly hasn't done anything this world cup to deserve a place.

 

[wingy]

Sterling’s England career has mainly played under Hodgson, which is possibly the worst England manager ever in major tournaments. No one played well under him — look at Kane now, who was on corners and 0 goals in 2016!

Rashford has played well for England when called upon, but that miss versus Belgium should raise concerns. That was a miss in a game with zero consequence, with little to no pressure — now imagine putting him in that same position in an important knockout game. Sterling miss v Panama was equally as bad, but he’s hardly known for his headers now. This is balanced with his link up play for Lingard’s goal. At this point in his career, Rashford neither has the link up play of Sterling nor the finishing ability of Vardy.

Sterling and Vardy have just come off impressive seasons for their clubs, whereas Rashford is still in the development stage of his career, and hasn’t been as good as the other two. The real debate should be Vardy or Sterling, and for me, Sterling edges it, just.

Rashford’s time will come.

Rashfords got it, he's just lost his mojo Mourino influence confidence has taken a hit .

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I would rather get knocked out in a big game against Brazil / France / Spain than I would against Colombia. I think Southgate's selection was defeatist and unfair on the fans who have spent significant amounts to follow them.
The fact that Belgium's second string beat ours at a canter is worrying.

Belgium just have a better squad than ours. For context, just about every spurs player I’ve seen interviewed in their club roles say that Dembélé is one of the best players they’ve played with, technicality-wise. They have Courtois, Alderwield, Kompany, Vertonghan, De Brunye, Lukaku, Hazard, Mertens (had a belter in Italy) who would all start for us, let’s be honest.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Rashfords got it, he's just lost his mojo Mourino influence confidence has taken a hit .

He has the attributes to go far in the game, but he’s no Rooney in 2004.

 

[martcov]

He has the attributes to go far in the game, but he’s no Rooney in 2004.

Rooney 2006 was a disappointment. Got sent off stupidly.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Vardy is shite. Nowhere near international level.

Has a better international record than Rashford and is a 20 goal-a-season striker in the Premiership. The stats speak for themselves.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Rooney 2006 was a disappointment. Got sent off stupidly.

Which is why I stipulated the year 2004. But in 2006, he was also coming back from a bad injury. Rooney’s international career at major tournaments will be looked back in failure. 1 in 11 in the World Cup and disappointing performances at Euro 2012 and 2016, he never hit the heights of 2004 unfortunately.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Belgium just have a better squad than ours. For context, just about every spurs player I’ve seen interviewed in their club roles say that Dembélé is one of the best players they’ve played with, technicality-wise. They have Courtois, Alderwield, Kompany, Vertonghan, De Brunye, Lukaku, Hazard, Mertens (had a belter in Italy) who would all start for us, let’s be honest.

How many Spurs players have played for a top level club? Not many. What about Modric? He's better than Dembele

 

[martcov]

Which is why I stipulated the year 2004. But in 2006, he was also coming back from a bad injury. Rooney’s international career at major tournaments will be looked back in failure. 1 in 11 in the World Cup and disappointing performances at Euro 2012 and 2016, he never hit the heights of 2004 unfortunately.

Yes, I remember everyone singing about Rooney before the game in 2006. the optimism. Had the English Pub on the fan mile in Hamburg. Atmosphere was fantastic... until Rooney got sent off.... people actually cried.. big tough England fans.... total flop...