[Football] Jose Izquierdo, Don’t You Dare!

Megazone said:

England need to play better than that if they want to win the WC.

Not enough imagination on the ball and too much fear of the opposition. Colombia look very in control during the 1st half of extra time. We shouldn't be getting controlled by teams of a lesser standard. The England defence were constantly putting themselves under pressure with a lot of silly errors. Way too many misplaced passes for anyone to say Dunk shouldn't have been selected.

But nonetheless, very happy England won. When was the last time England turned around a penalty shootout from a losing situation?

Middle finger up to all the England haters! In your face you bunch of unpatriotic scum bags!

Click to expand...

One Teddy Maybank said:

Thought we were poor, we are so reliant on set pieces, and although on top as soon as Dier came on we suddenly got a lot worse....

But Southgate has galvanised everyone and people are in danger of believing.......

Kane, Trippier and Maguire amazing World Cup so far.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

You watched a different game to me, perhaps with different expectations. I thought it was one of England's best performances at a finals in a very long time. I'm struggling to remember when we were better or more in control of the ball. We controlled the long periods of the game, limited them to barely a sniff of the goal until injury time. We had to deal with a huge amount of gamesmanship and a side willing to get 10 men behind the ball making it difficult to get behind or break them down.

We are reliant on set pieces, but not sure why that is a problem given we are causing so many problems with them.

We're playing from the back, dominating possession, we're working decent positions. Columbia showed so little ambition carving out clear cut chances was always going to be difficult. Considering they needed a goal, I didn't see much threat from them until they tried a wonder strike then we struggle at a corner with everyone in the box. Even after that and looking a bit shaky in the first 5 mins of ET, I thought we went on to dominate that too.

We weren't brilliant, room for improvement, and of course we'll need to be better to go further, but 'poor' is harsh, very harsh, no idea what heights you imagine they can get to if you rate that as poor.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

You watched a different game to me, perhaps with different expectations. I thought it was one of England's best performances at a finals in a very long time. I'm struggling to remember when we were better or more in control of the ball. We controlled the long periods of the game, limited them to barely a sniff of the goal until injury time. We had to deal with a huge amount of gamesmanship and a side willing to get 10 men behind the ball making it difficult to get behind or break them down.

We are reliant on set pieces, but not sure why that is a problem given we are causing so many problems with them.

We're playing from the back, dominating possession, we're working decent positions. Columbia showed so little ambition carving out clear cut chances was always going to be difficult. Considering they needed a goal, I didn't see much threat from them until they tried a wonder strike then we struggle at a corner with everyone in the box. Even after that and looking a bit shaky in the first 5 mins of ET, I thought we went on to dominate that too.

We weren't brilliant, room for improvement, and of course we'll need to be better to go further, but 'poor' is harsh, very harsh, no idea what heights you imagine they can get to if you rate that as poor.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...

martin tyler said:

Don’t think we should be slagging off the performance. In terms of controlling the game we managed that very well for 80 minutes against a nasty bunch of wankers who did everything possible to make it a scrap. Only criticism I have would be there isn’t that one player who can unlock a compact defence on a regular basis and it causes Kane to come to deep at times. That aside we are QF for the 1st time in 12 years let’s give the lads some support. It’s a young team that can only get better

Click to expand...

Papa Lazarou said:

As this thread is about Jose, I bet he was gutted to not get on again. At least he'll be a little fresher than some returning from the WC.

Click to expand...

martin tyler said:

Very true. I think he would have caused Trippier more problems cutting inside than the winger who played all game. Benefits us though. Hopefully he’s had an enjoyable experience but will come back raring to go again.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

You watched a different game to me, perhaps with different expectations. I thought it was one of England's best performances at a finals in a very long time. I'm struggling to remember when we were better or more in control of the ball. We controlled the long periods of the game, limited them to barely a sniff of the goal until injury time. We had to deal with a huge amount of gamesmanship and a side willing to get 10 men behind the ball making it difficult to get behind or break them down.

We are reliant on set pieces, but not sure why that is a problem given we are causing so many problems with them.

We're playing from the back, dominating possession, we're working decent positions. Columbia showed so little ambition carving out clear cut chances was always going to be difficult. Considering they needed a goal, I didn't see much threat from them until they tried a wonder strike then we struggle at a corner with everyone in the box. Even after that and looking a bit shaky in the first 5 mins of ET, I thought we went on to dominate that too.

We weren't brilliant, room for improvement, and of course we'll need to be better to go further, but 'poor' is harsh, very harsh, no idea what heights you imagine they can get to if you rate that as poor.

Click to expand...

One Teddy Maybank said:

How many chances from open play? You say controlled periods, but Spain also did that and created little.

Sorry it was poor, Colombia were dirty but there was little imagination out there IMO. I really feel we’re getting carried away on the back of wins against teams that we should always beat.

Sweden are well organised and it will be another tough game. Hopefully they’ll be less inclined to consistently break play up by any means.

Click to expand...

One Teddy Maybank said:

How many chances from open play?
You say controlled periods, but Spain also did that and created little.

Sorry it was poor, Colombia were dirty but there was little imagination out there IMO. I really feel we’re getting carried away on the back of wins against teams that we should always beat.

Sweden are well organised and it will be another tough game. Hopefully they’ll be less inclined to consistently break play up by any means.

If we get through on set-pieces great, but surely that should not be our sole reliance?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Guy Fawkes said:

I always wonder why people make this comment and what it is actually based upon, knowledge, rankings or an assumption that we should beat anyone bar a handful of teams that are considered (by the person making the claim) better than us (Brazil, etc)


Colombia are ranked 16th in the World by FIFA before the tournament started, Sweden are ranked 24th (the other teams on our side of the draw are Russia at 70th and Croatia who are 20th)

England are ranked equal 12th, so in the rankings, Colombia were just 3 spots below us before the match started so why does that mean that those 3 spots higher in the rankings means we should always beat them? - I don't get where this assumption comes from, is it just because it's purely England and therefore expectations of the team are much higher than they should be and therefore fairly unrealistic

Besides, it knock out cup football and anything can happen in that format as football is anything but predictable, (especially in this tournament)

Click to expand...

goldstone said:

Wrong. England were poor. TWO shots on target in 120 minutes of football! That's nowhere near good enough. In particular I was particularly unimpressed with Sterling, Alli and Lingard.

Click to expand...