The World Cup Thread (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Earlsdon_Skyblue1
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Premier league stats don’t always equate to international pedigree. Kevin Davies, Beattie , Phillips and Bent were prolific scorers but never international quality
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
He’s scored against the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy and Wales (semi-finalists in 2016) with 7 goals in 24 caps, which is a goal every 3.4 games.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Peter crouch scored 15 international goals before Messi I think in terms of games played
Don’t fall into the Esrorica trap of statistical temple worship
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
You’re moving the goal posts a bit. I’m just saying Dembélé is rated very highly amongst his Spurs teammates, coincidentally, most of whom make up the England squad. Dembélé would start for England for sure, he’s behind De Brunye who’s Europe’s, if not the world’s in-form midfielder right now.
Belgium are in a bit of a ‘golden generation’ themselves because they have some fantastic individuals. Individually, the two players who I have absolute confidence would start for Belgium is Kane and Walker (as a wingback). Let’s be honest, the difference between Kane and Lukaku isn’t a lot.
Don’t get me wrong, both sides at full strength, we have a decent chance of beating them because we’ve got the tools to hurt them (just none of them played last night). Belgium lack balance because Carrassco isn’t a natural wingback and De Brunye probably doesn’t suit being a deeper CM with only one partner in a 4 man midfield. Tactically, they could be exploited. However, on an individual level, Belgium have by far a superior team.
Part of the reason we’ve switched to 5-3-2 under Southgate is because our midfielders aren’t the best at retaining possession as the Spanish, and our defenders aren’t really good enough to play 4 at the back at the upper eschelons of world football. Our new identity and system suits us well, provides balance and gives us the best chance to compete.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
What’s your point?
People are falling into the hero-worship trap of a young player who’s not proved himself at club or national level. He deserved his shot in the team, looked decent v Tunisia, but he’s not a starter imo.
Rashford missed a sitter of a chance last night, if he scores it, he starts v Columbia. But, he didn’t take his chance and in sports, especially major tournaments, you get one opportunity. Sterling starts, and if we’re chasing a goal, Vardy is the logical substitute to bring on, not Rashford.
Rashford’s international goals:
Australia, Costa Rica, Slovakia
Vardy’s:
Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Wales, Turkey and Lithuania — it’s like Welbeck who’s collected goals versus the likes of San Marino.
Is there really a comparison to be made?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Some strange logic going on with the assumption that Colombia will be a cakewalk but we must avoid decent opposition at any cost because we'll probably lose. You don't get this attitude with other quality teams.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Italy and Germany in 1982?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Somone really needs to tell Sir Alex Ferguson.
'Momentum is the key.'
www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/momentum-key-says-alex-ferguson-3329598
'Momentum is the key.'
www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/momentum-key-says-alex-ferguson-3329598
What momentum did Portugal have two years ago? They only won 2 games in the whole tournament and they won it because they had an easy route to the final .
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I know.
As per usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle and not how Grendel says it.
Momentum can be key, but it is not everything. Has been proven that teams have achieved success without having momentum in competitions, but by the same token momentum can be vital and aid your fortunes due to it galvanising confidence and belief.
It's ridiculous to say momentum is meaningless. It can be key, but it is not everything.
Hopefully no momentum would have been lost anyway. I don't think Belgiums first team will be too happy that their reserves beat our reserves and gave them a harder route to the final. I also don't think that England's first team will be affected by a reserve team loss.
Otis
Well-Known Member
No. The fact it was our second 11 should have no effect on the first 11.
Only thing that concerned me was the lack of effort and application from Eric Dier.
Part of me wonders if he is peed off that Henderson has taken that main midfield mantle.
If Southgate has said Henderson is the man anyway, Dier might just think even if he played well he still would not get in.
Might sound a crazy theory, but Dier looked distinctly disinterested against Belgium.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Dier has always maintained he prefers to play as a centre back anyway. It could work for him in midfield if paired with someone like Oxlade-Chamberlain who can move the ball.
I_Saw_Shaw_Score
Well-Known Member
The ‘should have topped the group’ lot have their excuses set already.
Lose to Colombia “momentum was lost, shouldn’t have tried to take the ‘easy’ route”.
Get to the semis or further “yeah but it was the easy side of the draw”
Lose to Colombia “momentum was lost, shouldn’t have tried to take the ‘easy’ route”.
Get to the semis or further “yeah but it was the easy side of the draw”
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Countless people were saying they would rather played Notts County instead of Lincoln. Guess what? It worked and no one is moaning now.
England are not expected to get that far in this tournament, which means the logic is we aren't that amazing. Use a bit of cunning to help us get further? I can not see a problem there.
We will have to prove ourselves later in the tournament against bigger teams anyway. That time will come if we get through this bit. No one will question us if we avoided Brazil but still go on to beat Spain, for example. The difference is one is in the semis and the other in the quarters...
England are not expected to get that far in this tournament, which means the logic is we aren't that amazing. Use a bit of cunning to help us get further? I can not see a problem there.
We will have to prove ourselves later in the tournament against bigger teams anyway. That time will come if we get through this bit. No one will question us if we avoided Brazil but still go on to beat Spain, for example. The difference is one is in the semis and the other in the quarters...
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Again, good post but I feel a few excuses for Sterling there again.
We are not under Hodgson now and all other 10 players in the team seem to be pulling their weight and doing well. Sterling has missed so many sitters, so many. Rashford has missed one and despite playing less games has a better goal ratio than Sterling now.
Rashford's time might be to come, but Sterling's has gone. If we persist with him I believe it will only hinder us.
I would like to be proved wrong but so far this tournament my predictions about him have been spot on.
Sky Blue Harry H
Well-Known Member
I almost feel that Sterling, with his pace and small stature, is more likely to earn us a penalty than score a goal. I know some don't like Vardy, but he offers more threat in terms of goals and will not let defenders settle. I'd stick him in the main line up at Sterling's expense-but I know Southgate won't.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Prefer Sterling over Vardy any day of the week.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
You’re talking about Sterling as if he’s 33, not 23. He’s certainly not past it, is one of our in-form players domestically and it’s in our interests to try and get the most out of him in the national team.
Rashford had his chance and didn’t take it. You shouldn’t be glossing over his 1v1 miss, it was a costly mistake and as good a chance he’ll get in this tournament. Alan Shearer and Peter Schmeichel rightly made that point, and if he scored that chance, I’d agree he should be starting. With all due respect, people are getting carried away with Rashford, he’s not a genuine wonder kid like Rooney was, and he’s still very much more potential than current ability. It’s not wise to pin our hopes on him in 2018.
If you want to talk goal scoring ratios, Vardy has a far better record than both and has scored against better opponents than either Sterling or Rashford. Hence, it’s a mystery why Vardy seems to be playing 3rd choice to both of them.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
What's he actually done at this world cup to deserve a place?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The phrasing of the question is very narrow if you're asking what has he done at this tournament in isolation. So, I reply with the question of what has Rashford, Sterling or Vardy done at this World Cup to deserve a place?
Southgate is right to start with Sterling because he has the better goal ratio in the Prem than either Vardy or Rashford, with a further 11 assists - far more than either Vardy or Rashford. Coming off such a dominant and winning season with Man City breeds that winning confidence too. Rashford, in fairness, has played v well for England in the past, is young and fearless, but he's not ready to be a starter yet imo. It's one thing scoring a screamer v Costa Rica in a friendly, and another thing scoring at a major tournament, he was panicked at that chance v Belgium in a low-stakes game. It'd be foolish to trust him in that same scenario in a knockout game. Vardy, however, possesses a skill no one in the team has, bar Kane. He's a genuinely quality finisher of the football and has been one of the best out and out strikers in the Prem for 3 seasons now. If we're chasing a goal in the knockouts, Vardy is the best option to bring on 100%. Despite the other two being better players in other aspects of the game.
One last point, the only two genuine 'star' quality players we have is Raheem Sterling and Harry Kane so to not play one of them is foolish. Rashford is not at the level Owen was in '98 or Rooney in '04.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
True colours are showing through a bit now.
You say Rashford has had his chance and it has gone. This is down to one miss and one game? Sterling has had the rest of the tournament, plus 6 and a half years putting on the England shirt. All has been a disappointment.
I would have started Vardy instead of Sterling but as that's not going to happen I still rate Rashford higher than him.
Sterling has been our worst player in both games. When we field a full strength team he shouldn't be a part of it. If it was any other player in any other team that's what you would do.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Sterling and Rashford have played better than Vardy, therefore they are ahead of him in the pecking order.
Otis
Well-Known Member
World Cup: 'Picking and plotting England's route to the semis.' Shearer asks -'how can we be so arrogant?' -
World Cup: 'Picking England's route to the semis - how can we be so arrogant?'
World Cup: 'Picking England's route to the semis - how can we be so arrogant?'
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
This World Cup? Yes, it has. Not his international career as a whole because his time will come eventually. Shearer and Schmeichel also think he's missed his opportunity. If you're not the first choice you have to take your chances, he didn't unfortunately.
Sterling hasn't been the worst player at all, that's nonsense.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
It is not nonsense. Who has been worse than him?
The player ratings on the BBC agree with the view he has been the worst player in both the games.
You need to take the Sterling tinted glasses off.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
So was it a factor at all for Portugal or Italy in the 1982 World Cup?
Westendlad
Well-Known Member
Personally i'd say Young has been worse than Stirling. If Stirling fails to deliver on Tuesday i'd take him off at HT and put Rashford on.
Westendlad
Well-Known Member
Who do we fancy boys and girls. France or Argentina ? I'm going for the Argies.
I_Saw_Shaw_Score
Well-Known Member
France hopefully for my winners bet.
But I think 3-1 Argentina.
But I think 3-1 Argentina.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Belgium rested even more players so they were no different
You said we should have bought Kane on - if he got an injury that would have looked a really smart move. The players have rested while the opponents next week had a hard game in 36 degree heat - resting players was a perfectly sensible thing to do.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
We haven’t actually created a lot chances from open play, Rashford’s chance v Belgium was probably our best chance in open play over the 3 group games. Sterling was a large part of 1 of those goals with some good link up play.
Lingard v Tunisia missed 2-3 clear cut chances. Maguire and Young were somewhat pedestrian at times with their winger down that LCB and LWB channel and some of the exaggerated match ratings laid into them and Walker, who gave away a needless penalty at a point in the game where we were in complete control. In that game, to say Sterling was ‘the worst’ is nonsense. His only ‘mistake’ was mistriking the ball when he was in an offside position, so it was inconsequential.
The only stars Southgate has at his disposal is Kane, Sterling and possibly Alli (who has lost a bit of form compared to last year) and Walker.
But, you’re making the mistake of believing I have a preference in the Sterling v Rashford ‘debate’ because I don’t. My argument is simple: Rashford had the chance to pick himself by scoring. But, he missed the chance, and with it, the chance to stake his claim as a starter.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
France to win today ? I think so
lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
Initial foul outside box I thought
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk