We might have lost, but the point is we'd have been better winning the group and we'd have had the best chance of doing that it we played our best team.
I've already said Clyne did well (no better than Walker), but Bertrand was not as good as Rose.
As I said.
And Rose for Bertrand, at least.
60...
That's basically what I'm saying - Spain weren't playing for anything and Croatia had the desire. If it was a knockout game it would have been different.
Well we disagree there.
The Croatia that lost a 2 goal lead to the Czech Republic - the only point they could manage.
Yeah, and Ireland are better than Italy :rolleyes:
They're still better than Croatia.
Teams are always under pressure to perform at home, but they do better at home. Like the one time France won the World Cup, they were at home. As with us. It's called home advantage for a reason, yet you're...
Obviously you can't know that. If it wasn't a weaker team, then I wouldn't be complaining.
Oh come on. Walker & Rose off, replaced by Clyne & Bertrand. Clyne did really well, but it was against a weak opposition. Bertrand wasn't good enough.
Alli off, Henderson on :facepalm:
Rooney, our best...
I think you can work out the point, I didn't need to list all games.
But you've obviously got more chance of winning with your first team, that's why they're the first team. Resting so many players was clearly a bad idea.
You realise that's complete nonsense right? Of course the order matters, that's why Croatia are now as short odds as us to win, and Italy are much longer odds. You're more likely to win the whole thing if you play more average sides on the route to the final.
It was ours for the taking, if we'd won our group.
We knew that finishing 2nd would mean a quarter final against France (if we get through the round of 16).
Finishing 1st meant a quarter final against F1 or E2 - even if that was Portugal, who hadn't won either of their first two games, it would...