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

[Guy Fawkes]

This!

My work Colleague has it's coming home posters up! We were not good enough to beat a Columbia side missing their best player, We didn't create enough opportunities and will lose as soon as we come up against a decent side. We may end up getting to the final before we meet a decent side but we don't have the quality to win it

At what point does an opposition team become viewed as decent? - What is that change in view based upon?

Top 16 in the World and 3 spots below England in the World ranking is obviously not enough to be considered decent by some, so what is it?

 

[nickbrighton]

With regard to the "Teams we should always beat" nonsense, isn't this the attitude we spent a lot of the past 8 months taking the pi*s out of. Comments from Arsenal and others "we should really be beating teams like Brighton". Surely Brighton's own return to the top flight , Icelands wins, South Koreas wins and all the fact that Germany, Argentina, Portugal are now looking at the world cup from home rest has shown that there is no such thing as "a team we should beat"

Whilst the 48 team world cup will surely produce some very one sided matches , nothing should be taken for granted, no team underestimated. If we as Brighton Fans haven't learned that lesson by now, we should be thankful that FINALY an England manager has

 

[Simster]

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.

This sums up Southgate's England to a tee - playing to our strengths and incredibly well organised and well prepared. If you ignore the stiffs against Belgium, he's got the job done every single time since before the World Cup. Last night reminded me of the pre-tournament World Cup friendlies against Holland (we won) and Italy (would have won, but for a dodgy pen at the end of the game). Nothing special, but very well disciplined. It just goes to show what you can achieve with the right management team and one world class player. Which reminds me, I wonder what Zlatan is thinking now? He is a player who even at his age can win games on his own. Sweden with Zlatan would have had a real shout of winning it from this position.

 

[Questions]

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)

Sweden beat the 6th best team in the world in their last match. Those rankings are oh so accurate.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I can't believe some of the 'realistic' posts on this thread. We invented the game and should therefore beat anyone, any time, end of. And we should be doing it in style. Anything less is a ****ing disgrace, and if we don't walk all over Sweden in the next game I am going to put my boot right through my telly, so help me I will.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

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)

You’re quoting a ranking system widely ridiculed. Weren’t Switzerland 4th?

Basically, it would have been a surprise if we had lost to Tunisia. I don’t believe we have lost to an African team in the World Cup.

And come on did you really think we’d be tested against Panama. We were efficient and effective, but they were poor and I would not expect us to lose to either of those sides.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Napper]

How many chances from open play?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

who cares if it is set plays or open play , goals are goals.

Last night , on another day

Kane scores a header
Ali scores a header
Dier scores a header.

So that's 3 goals + the pen.

Don't get the hate

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

We'll agree to disagree. Thought our movement was good, plenty of overlapping although Kane coming too deep at times, we caused Columbia plenty of problems, to the extent we won plenty of corners and free kicks creating the situations that we are strong in, and causing rash decision making in defence from them. Why do we want to consider being good from set pieces a negative?

"wins against teams that we should always beat" - there is my answer really though, if that is your start point, then you must have been disappointed with every England performance at tournaments for the last 40 years. Even 1990 we scrapped through the group stage, weren't great against Cameroon or Belgium and had a decent performance against the Germans. I don't know when we've really been at a tournament and come through these games against 'teams we should always beat' with a stunning performance. Seem to remember Italy playing terribly in 06 against Australia to win 1 nil, then win the tournament.

I'm not getting carried away, I think if anything I'm more realistic as I don't see us as a side that should always be beating sides like Columbia. I go into the Sweden game knowing it will be a massive test, not another game we expect to win.

That’s fine re the agreeing . I never said Colombia was an easy game, just that I thought we were poor, and they were worse.

I would argue the 1990 team were more creative than this team. Belgium in that tournament were much like Sweden will be, organised and effective, just hope David Platt turns up [emoji2]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I can't believe some of the 'realistic' posts on this thread. We invented the game and should therefore beat anyone, any time, end of. And we should be doing it in style. Anything less is a ****ing disgrace, and if we don't walk all over Sweden in the next game I am going to put my boot right through my telly, so help me I will.

Oh dear..... it’s not about inventing the game, it’s about quality of performance.

The fact I expect us to beat Panama and Tunisia is based on personnel....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

who cares if it is set plays or open play , goals are goals.

Last night , on another day

Kane scores a header
Ali scores a header
Dier scores a header.

So that's 3 goals + the pen.

Don't get the hate

Why do people tag analysing a 1-1 draw critically, over 120 mins, against a poor Colombia side as hate?

We narrowly won on penalties. If we're going to win the WC (which many believe), we're going to need to play better. That's not hate, just avoiding jumping on the 'We're going to win the WC' bandwagon. We've yet to show anything other than beating a terrible Panama team, to suggest we're winning the WC. Last nights performance had many concerns. Let's not forget the majority of this country, at one point last night, thought England were on their way home.

When are we ever going to learn?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Oh dear..... it’s not about inventing the game, it’s about quality of performance.

The fact I expect us to beat Panama and Tunisia is based on personnel....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Sweden beat the 6th best team in the world in their last match. Those rankings are oh so accurate.

You’re quoting a ranking system widely ridiculed. Weren’t Switzerland 4th?

Basically, it would have been a surprise if we had lost to Tunisia. I don’t believe we have lost to an African team in the World Cup.

And come on did you really think we’d be tested against Panama. We were efficient and effective, but they were poor and I would not expect us to lose to either of those sides.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Swiss have manipulated their ranking by being very selective in their opposition for friendlies, picking teams they know they should beat so that they can collect ranking points and have a false position as a result. We could have done the same thing to give ourselves a higher ranking but chose not to, just as most other countries haven't engineered their ranking position either. Had Colombia done the same thing to give them a false position? - no, they are up there on merit, they play competitive matches against teams like Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Uruguay (all decent sides) in order to try to qualify for World Cups, The Swiss had Hungary, Faroe Island, Latvia and Andorra to beat to 2nd (behind Portugal)

They therefore have less chance, because of the qualifying format, to engineer their results to give them the false position in the rankings as a result than the Swiss could (The Swiss have also played friendlies against Belarus, Moldova and Bosnia in the last couple of years to help boost their position)

Their performances this World Cup also suggest that they (Colombia) are a decent team, even against Japan where they were down to 10 men after 3 minutes but where still the better side and deserved something from the game.

I therefore think that their current ranking is a truer reflection of their ability (I don't agree that the Swiss and their ranking are accurate and the same with Tunisia and their ranking)

I would like to know where you actually would place Colombia in the World rankings and how far they would be behind England if you were to decide it for yourself rather than use the FIFA ranking (also where would you put England if the FIFA ones are so worthless?

 

[Brovion]

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.

'Poor' is a relative term. Were we up to the standard of the many great Brazilian, German, Argentinian, or Italian teams of the past? No. Not even close. However by our much lower standards, over the last seventy years of almost constant failure, that was a very good performance indeed, probably in the top 10% of England competitive performances of all time. You either haven't watched many England games or you have a very selective memory.

 

[Billy the Fish]

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.

This is exactly how I saw it. England controlled the game for the first 75 minutes, but it was two evenly matched teams and a game of few chances. Some people are desperate to say England aren't good, if we'd beaten them 3-0 the same people would call Colombia sub-standard opposition.

 

[Commander]

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.

'Poor' is a relative term. Were we up to the standard of the many great Brazilian, German, Argentinian, or Italian teams of the past? No. Not even close. However by our much lower standards, over the last seventy years of almost constant failure, that was a very good performance indeed, probably in the top 10% of England competitive performances of all time. You either haven't watched many England games or you have a very selective memory.

Or he's a miserable old dullard, who never ever posts anything positive, and is only happy when he's moaning.

(He is).

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I would like to know where you actually would place Colombia in the World rankings and how far they would be behind England if you were to decide it for yourself rather than use the FIFA ranking (also where would you put England if the FIFA ones are so worthless?

Sorry, I’m obviously not making my point very well [emoji2].

I thought England were poor and Colombia were worse from a performance perspective, this is nothing to do with rankings or how I rate Colombia, I thought they would be much better offensively, but seemed more intent on being niggly than using their ability.

If you wanted me to rate them, I would say similar to ourselves somewhere between 8 and 15. As per my earlier post the rankings are nonsense, which you appeared to agree with.

All I have said is I would not expect England to lose or struggle against Tunisia and Panama. Did you?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

This is exactly how I saw it. England controlled the game for the first 75 minutes, but it was two evenly matched teams and a game of few chances. Some people are desperate to say England aren't good, if we'd beaten them 3-0 the same people would call Colombia sub-standard opposition.

Had we lost the penalties. Would you still be saying what a great performance that was?

The only time I can remember England losing and getting knocked out after playing very well was against Argentina in 1998. Last nights performance was in no comparison.

 

[Brovion]

Or he's a miserable old dullard, who never ever posts anything positive, and is only happy when he's moaning.

(He is).

Yeah, possibly, possibly. However I'm prepared to give him (and Megazone) the benefit of the doubt. Whenever there are England match threads on here they are always flooded with people falling over themselves to say they didn't watch it and they don't care about the national side. Those people won't realise what a good performance that was as they have no yardstick to judge it by, just perhaps the odd memory of, beating Argentina in 2002 or Holland in 1996.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

'Poor' is a relative term. Were we up to the standard of the many great Brazilian, German, Argentinian, or Italian teams of the past? No. Not even close. However by our much lower standards, over the last seventy years of almost constant failure, that was a very good performance indeed, probably in the top 10% of England competitive performances of all time. You either haven't watched many England games or you have a very selective memory.

Well that goes both ways - I would argue you’re easily pleased. [emoji2]

But ‘poor’ is better than ‘woeful’, which sums up previous efforts. IMO we haven’t reached our full potential, which will hopefully happen in the next 3 games.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

Yeah, possibly, possibly. However I'm prepared to give him (and Megazone) the benefit of the doubt. Whenever there are England match threads on here they are always flooded with people falling over themselves to say they didn't watch it and they don't care about the national side. Those people won't realise what a good performance that was as they have no yardstick to judge it by, just perhaps the odd memory of, beating Argentina in 2002 or Holland in 1996.

and there was me thinking football was a game of opinions. I didn't realise you're not allowed to see flaws in the starting 11 if they scrape wins against lesser teams.