What's lack of traveling got to do with having a good tournament?Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
Printable View
What's lack of traveling got to do with having a good tournament?Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
They made the semis of the last World Cup and lost the final of the euros on penalties. They aren’t perfect but they are a lot better than mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick
It’s about opinions.
Once they came up against a top team, they lost.
They got there with an outrageous pelanty.
They drew against Scotland, without threatening a goal.
They were lucky against Croatia
They are not that good.
It means they had the easiest route of anytime in the tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by dembethewarrior
Less travelling time means more training and recovery time.
It's not hard to understand
It was more of a factor in this tournament as it was spread over so many countries
England only had to leave London once
Italy had a great tournament because they won it. How far did they travel?Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
you can think about it in more than one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
you could say they had their best European championships ever, only missing out on winning the whole thing by a couple of penalty kicks To a team who haven't lost in 34 games. with a very young squad that will only get better. they only conceded one goal in open play in the entire tournament.
in successive tournaments they've finished 4th, 3rd and now 2nd.
on the other hand they got to play almost all their matches at home, had no important injuries or suspensions to contend with. an extremely favourable draw in the competition, and they still didn't win anything. their manager is still to slow to react when another team are dominating the ball.
when the dust settles it should go down as a good tournament for them though.
some pundits are already talking about them dominating for the next 10 years though, which is extremely premature.
sure, they COULD - especially if the manager corrects his shortcomings (and retains his strengths). but they won't keep getting favourable draws, or avoiding injuries to key players, and the next world cup will be very hot which might not suit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dembethewarrior
Really?
After the group games they played all the 4 knock out games outside Italy
They knockout Spain and Belgium
Ranked 6 and top in the rankings on neutral grounds.
England beat Germany ranked 12 at home
Only game away from home was against Ukraine ranked 24th
Italy beat England in the final in England
Is that enough reasons for you to see the difference between the good and average?
Anything else you need explaining I'm happy to oblige
If England are mediocre, what does that make the 22 teams who didn't make the final?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
So the finalist in the fa Cup are the best teams?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
If England had met France/Italy/Belgium in the last 16 that would have been as far as they went.
No, 'mediocre' is the key word. England are clearly not mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
I predicted that France would beat England in the last 16, but can you really say France 'would' have won? In hindsight, now we know that Switzerland knocked them out, I don't think so.
France should have beaten the Swiss.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
But being France they got lazy thinking it was all done at 3-1 then came unstuck.
If England played France tomorrow I know who I would put my money on.
on the other hand, Italy were the best team in the tournament and needed penalties to beat England.Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
England could have beaten or lost to any of the other to sides
None of that means England are mediocre.Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
Agreed Italy were worthy winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
But apart from the early goal when England caught them cold do you think England looked like scoring?
Only one team was trying to win it in extra time and it wasn't England
Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=me...ile-gws-wiz-hp
I stand by what I said !
As pointed out above, only meaningful shot on goal, was in the 2nd minute.
England have one of the best international squads around. Its their clueless (but lovely) manager who plays 5 at the back and two DM's thats the problem. How he hasn't used the likes of Sancho, Grealish and Rashford properly is sackable. They should've walked this tournament, and if they replace Southgate with a half decent manager, they're in with a shout to win the world cup.
You might want to Google the word 'average' while you're at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
Someone with tactical nous may have won them the trophy. Mancini reacted and Southgate didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueArmy 86
Luckily, the chances of him getting sacked are tiny.
The other fella was right. You're not very bright.Quote:
Originally Posted by willo1927
Once the euphoria of reaching a final settles, as well as the disappointment of losing it, I think if I were English now I’d have to feel like kicking myself at having not won that tournament with all that was in their favour.
England’s progress felt par for me and in a way almost doesn't feel like as much of an achievement on reflection as being finalists should confer. Before the tournament I think semis would have been a fair expectation, with the draw and how the group games settled then I think finalist would be a fair expectation - winners with home advantage (especially in Covid period).
England have some fantastic players but the games I saw felt like they were trying to do the bare minimum required. In fairness, it nearly was all that was required in the end. For me, they needed one big performance this tournament and they didn’t deliver. Feels like a big opportunity missed.
England had everything in their favour and came up short, again. They will never have a better chance of winning a major championship.
They are definitely better than mediocre but in my opinion lack the stuff of champions, whatever that maybe.
Looking further forward, if Spain can find a goalscorer in the next 18 months, look out the rest of the world.
As for England dominating for the next 10 years, that's euphoria talking after their semi-final win. Unfortunately for England, other countries will improve too and they tend to do it a tad better than our dear neighbours.
they'll be in with a chance any the next couple of tournaments thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Moodybluebird
So you have no comeback to back up your view?Quote:
Originally Posted by dembethewarrior
No stats to show that you were right.
Enough said
You are a tube
With the number of quality players they have, they will always be in with a shout. However, with the possible exception of Greece 2004 and Portugal 2016, you need something special to bag yourself a major international trophy. And in my opinion, this is where England are found wanting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
For instance, they come nowhere near the great Spain sides of a few years back and lack the brilliance shown at times by the French in the last World Cup.
They are consistent, hard to beat, have depth to their squad but it usually takes a bit more than that.