England V France

[Metal Wolf89]

We have no creative infleunce in central midfield. Reminds me of Wolves!

I don't know what fans want. You have to set up and get the tactics right for the opposition your playing. Roy knows France are faster, more technical superior and dangerous on the counter, so England have to set up deep and take our chances via our own counter and set pieces.

I honestly think roys tactics were spot on today and the boys did a good job. I expect england to be a lot more attacking against Sweden and Ukraine.

So for all you moaners who can't see tactics when it hits you in the face, just take a step back and try to see what the team is doing!

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

I dont get what some of you expect

Competent and solid display against a decent attacking side. Felt with a bit more confidence we could have hurt them far more.

The Ox for me isn't a starter yet
Milner was excellent and I'm not a fan
Prefer Young wide left. When Rooney returns we will

The negativity and unrealistic viewpoints by some never fail to amaze.

Is being able to see an England team dominate possession against a half decent team just once too much to ask for?

Your more dangerous with the ball than without it, fact.

Hasn't anyone wondered why English players are constantly tired yet the 100s of foreigners who've played in the same league as them all season long never suffer from fatigue?

I'll give you a clue, think of what Dave Edwards does on a Saturday...

Edit. By half decent that means any team that is not San Marino.

 

[Jungleee]

Is being able to see an England team dominate possession against a half decent team just once too much to ask for?

Your more dangerous with the ball than without it, fact.

Hasn't anyone wondered why English players are constantly tired yet the 100s of foreigners who've played in the same league as them all season long never suffer from fatigue?

I'll give you a clue, think of what Dave Edwards does on a Saturday...

If it wasn't late at night, someone would have already said Nenad Milijas...

 

[MonkeySpanner]

IF we manage to get to the final and win it will anyone care how we did it? We don't have the talent of other countries and we don't have the ability of most so a point against France and Sweden loosing is good news for England no?

 

[Ulver]

Is being able to see an England team dominate possession against a half decent team just once too much to ask for?

Your more dangerous with the ball than without it, fact.

Hasn't anyone wondered why English players are constantly tired yet the 100s of foreigners who've played in the same league as them all season long never suffer from fatigue?

I'll give you a clue, think of what Dave Edwards does on a Saturday...

Edit. By half decent that means any team that is not San Marino.

Dominating possession is a mean, not an end in itself. You don't tend to dominate possession playing against teams with better players than you. Much like Wolves don't against United, City, Chelsea etc yet on our day we can beat them. So yes, asking for us to do that versus France or another top ball playing side like Spain or perhaps Germany is too much to ask. Note that Italy had 35% of the ball versus Spain, they had the better chances to win but failed to take them.

Plenty of foreigners have looked tired this tournament a well, in particular most of the Dutch were out on their feet come the 70th minute.

 

[singwolf_1]

For once I thought England played really well. The defence was well organised, and France was mostly left to shooting from outside the box. Hart unlucky to be beaten - I think he was unsighted.

 

[North West Wanderer]

We have no creative infleunce in central midfield. Reminds me of Wolves!

We do. V France you were never going to see much

 

[reanswolf]

It did remind me of watching Wolves, surrendering midfield as the game wore on. I actually feel as we did as well as we could, being an inferior collection of players. Thought Welbeck looked good up front though. But no slick interpassing and retaining possession in midfield.

 

[rincewind]

Depends what you expect. If it's a world beater performance you will be dissapointed as we aren't that good. If you expected a typical Roy organised, defensive effort, stifling the better side you won't.
We have to be realistic with our current players and if were going to compete be difficult to play against. I don't expect too much to change v Sweden, though hopefully we will emphasise attack a bit more.
As for playing like Wolves we never looked that solid in defence. Indeed part of our problem was trying to be too attacking and not getting players, especially midfield, into the correct defensive set up.

 

[North West Wanderer]

With A front 4 of Young Welbeck Milner and Ox I dont know what people expected v Benzema Nasri Malouda and Ribery!!

Not too surprised to see it's the same negative ones being negative.

 

[crocos]

Surprised at much of the doom & gloom on here - I thought England played really pretty well TBH.

 

[WestChiltingtonwolf]

Statistically we are the team with the least attempts so far this tournament. I can see us going out with 3 draws.

I had to laugh when it came up on screen at one point - France 10 attempts vs Englands 2. It shows stats mean f-all. France resulted to 20+ yard efforts, only 3 of which were dangerous. We had just as many good chances.

 

[WasStefan]

I had to laugh when it came up on screen at one point - France 10 attempts vs Englands 2. It shows stats mean f-all. France resulted to 20+ yard efforts, only 3 of which were dangerous. We had just as many good chances.

That is true. As I have said before - stats can be twisted.

We should have been 2-0 up within the first 30 minutes, although admittedly from then on in France looked the better side. Which they are.

We defended well and should qualify from the group, but that's not good enough for some people, we should be playing like Spain.

 

[Tring Wolf]

In terms of keeping possession and attacking flair, you have to remember that Hodgson is currently without our two most creative players in Rooney and Wilshere. In their absence, he has settled on a style of play that makes us compact and plays to the strengths of the players currently in the side.

As Wolves fans, we should know from last season that you have no chance of success if you are conceding two goals a game.

Going forward, I can see Hodgson's England being technically very good. It wouldn't surprise me if heading towards the 2014 World Cup, we see a side something along the lines of:

Hart
Walker, Jones, Terry/Cahill, Cole/Baines
Gerrard/Rodwell, Wilshere
Cleverley/Johnson/Oxlade-Chamberlain, Rooney, Young
Welbeck/Sturridge

 

[WasStefan]

In terms of keeping possession and attacking flair, you have to remember that Hodgson is currently without our two most creative players in Rooney and Wilshere. In their absence, he has settled on a style of play that makes us compact and plays to the strengths of the players currently in the side.

As Wolves fans, we should know from last season that you have no chance of success if you are conceding two goals a game.

Going forward, I can see Hodgson's England being technically very good. It wouldn't surprise me if heading towards the 2014 World Cup, we see a side something along the lines of:

Hart
Walker, Jones, Terry/Cahill, Cole/Baines
Gerrard/Rodwell, Wilshere
Cleverley/Johnson/Oxlade-Chamberlain, Rooney, Young
Welbeck/Sturridge

Bang on.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

I dont get what some of you expect

Competent and solid display against a decent attacking side. Felt with a bit more confidence we could have hurt them far more.

The Ox for me isn't a starter yet
Milner was excellent and I'm not a fan
Prefer Young wide left. When Rooney returns we will

The negativity and unrealistic viewpoints by some never fail to amaze.

I lost count of the number of times I cursed him yesterday.

However! Young (ish) England team with six of the starting line up never having played tournament football before and a brand new manager attempting to instil his ideas in a relatively short speace of time against a creative French side who know each other well (in terms of being fairly settled) who hadn't lost for 21 games prior to kick off.

It's a good point, hard earned. As someone else says above, the real test of our tournament intent is against Sweden on Friday. More of the same and we'll be lucky to get out the group. A convincing win and expectations will begin to grow ... again.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Convincing wins matter not GC. Win is a win

 

[FLEET WOLF]

reminded me of watching wolves. sitting back not really pressing. dull and uninspiring more concerned about not losing than going forward to win it. outside of the set pieces how many chances were created? therein lies the problem for me.

Spot on-the result was ok, but I thought we looked dull and unimaginative-any half decent team will beat us, quite honestly. One of my young colleagues here is saying it was one of the best England performances he has seen in the last 10 years! I know we are without some our most creative players, but even so, some of the football to me was utterly predictable and set pieces are the only time we are likely to score!

 

[FLEET WOLF]

Bang on.

All except Gerrard for me.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Spot on-the result was ok, but I thought we looked dull and unimaginative-any half decent team will beat us, quite honestly. One of my young colleagues here is saying it was one of the best England performances he has seen in the last 10 years! I know we are without some our most creative players, but even so, some of the football to me was utterly predictable and set pieces are the only time we are likely to score!

Half decent like France? Or Belgium?

 

[FLEET WOLF]

Half decent like France? Or Belgium?

France are half decent and could easily have beaten us last night in my view. A team like Croatia will be too good for us-I keep reading that we were well organised, defensively, which we were, but aren't England supposed to be one of the top 6 teams in the World? We have to show more attacking intent and flair than that or we have no chance of progressing in this tournament, or any other.

 

[Ulver]

France are half decent and could easily have beaten us last night in my view. A team like Croatia will be too good for us-I keep reading that we were well organised, defensively, which we were, but aren't England supposed to be one of the top 6 teams in the World? We have to show more attacking intent and flair than that or we have no chance of progressing in this tournament, or any other.

Is this tongue in cheek or do you have no concept of tactical play whatsoever? The whole point with this crucial first game was to not lose. You'd have to be insane to think we should go out and outpass/flair a team like France at this point in the tournament when we're missing crucial players and they have all of their flair players available.

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

Half decent like France? Or Belgium?

It was a meaningless game for Belgium and if they had a half decent striker they'd have probably won.

And yes France have a far better squad than we do, but so did Arsenal v Swansea?

If you set up to camp inside your own box and rely on the occasional free kick or corner, your going to come unstuck. You would think we of all people would realise this. How many times did we camp in our own box last season only to be beaten by a superb long range effort or a deflected shot?

Take Nasri's goal yesterday, if Gerrard & Parker were applying pressure to the French players that were passing the ball around on the edge of the box, like they should have, then they wouldn't have to try and make a last minute block and block Hart's view.

It occasionally works like it did for Chelsea in the CL but everyone would agree that that was one of the luckiest CL campaigns ever!

For the problems with England last night read the Ireland thread. The only difference is their luck run out, no pun intended, and if it wasn't for an unfortunate own goal and an individual mistake, they'd have drawn. Yet everyone mentioned how bad they played.

They only threatened through set pieces. Sound familiar?
They retreated to into their own box and gave the opposition too much time on the ball. sound familiar?
They gave up a large percentage of possession. Sound familiar?
They played long balls and went from back to front as quick as possibly often losing possession quickly. Sound familiar?
They played 442. Sound familiar?

 

[cobweb]

We have to show more attacking intent and flair than that or we have no chance of progressing in this tournament, or any other.

Like Greece in 2004 you mean? Or Chelsea in the CL?

The only way England will go far in this tournament is if they do exactly the opposite to what you're suggesting.

 

[gordonchas]

Like Greece in 2004 you mean? Or Chelsea in the CL?

The only way England will go far in this tournament is if they do exactly the opposite to what you're suggesting.

At some point England are going to have to attempt to win at least one of their games if they want to ensure they get out of this group.

This thread is football's equivalent of "realpolitik" where the ends justifies the means. Almost everyone is congratulating themselves on England's tactical success against the superior French (England are 5th in the world and France are currently 14th in FIFA's unfathomable rankings).

Yet if you look at last night's game from a neutral perspective, as we would about games involving other nations, what then can you say about England? My newspaper's headline about the game this morning says "Una ultradefensiva Inglaterra" which I don't think needs any translation.

And to think that there's a lot of posters on MM who call Spain boring.

If England stifle and block their way to winning the cup then everyone will be happy, at least for now, but there's about a one-in-a-hundred chance of that, as apart from anything else they will have to rely on at least a couple of penalty shoot-out successes.

If they go out lamely, without even having a go at their opponents, all this supposed tactical nous will be blown away in the inevitable wild ****storm that will follow. And quite rightly imv because it's dishonest and self-delusional to try and dress up eight men in your own penalty area as tactical sophistication

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

At some point England are going to have to attempt to win at least one of their games if they want to ensure they get out of this group.

This thread is football's equivalent of "realpolitik" where the ends justifies the means. Almost everyone is congratulating themselves on England's tactical success against the superior French (England are 5th in the world and France are currently 14th in FIFA's unfathomable rankings).

Yet if you look at last night's game from a neutral perspective, as we would about games involving other nations, what then can you say about England? My newspaper's headline about the game this morning says "Una ultradefensiva Inglaterra" which I don't think needs any translation.

And to think that there's a lot of posters on MM who call Spain boring.

If England stifle and block their way to winning the cup then everyone will be happy, at least for now, but there's about a one-in-a-hundred chance of that, as apart from anything else they will have to rely on at least a couple of penalty shoot-out successes.

If they go out lamely, without even having a go at their opponents, all this supposed tactical nous will be blown away in the inevitable wild ****storm that will follow. And quite rightly imv because it's dishonest and self-delusional to try and dress up eight men in your own penalty area as tactical sophistication

I think some people are forgetting what happened in SA.

The phrase often used to describe your last part is "two banks of four". I have to laugh everytime I hear that, it's just another way of saying 8 defenders.

 

[WestChiltingtonwolf]

My newspaper's headline about the game this morning says "Una ultradefensiva Inglaterra" which I don't think needs any translation.

And to think that there's a lot of posters on MM who call Spain boring.

How would spain have got on without at least three of their better players - for arguments sake lets even say just 2 Xavi and Iniesta? England were without their biggest attacking threat in Rooney, and though debatable 2 starting midfielders Lampard and Wilshere.

We did well with what we had and got as decent result against France.

Spain however, had no such injury worries (I'll counter their centre back missing with Ferdinand) yet still only got a point the same us us.

People in glass houses and all that.

 

[cobweb]

If England stifle and block their way to winning the cup then everyone will be happy, at least for now, but there's about a one-in-a-hundred chance of that, as apart from anything else they will have to rely on at least a couple of penalty shoot-out successes.

If they go out lamely, without even having a go at their opponents, all this supposed tactical nous will be blown away in the inevitable wild ****storm that will follow. And quite rightly imv because it's dishonest and self-delusional to try and dress up eight men in your own penalty area as tactical sophistication

You seem to be saying that England will have the same tactics against every nation. If they go out playing that way against Sweden, Poland, Ireland etc then yes, there will probably be a '$$$$storm'. However, if they're playing Spain, France, Germany etc this way and go out, I think the majority realise that even if they'd tried to outscore these teams, they would probably have lost anyway due to the superior talent they're facing.

If you think that England have the players to go toe to toe with the top nations then I think you're the one thats a bit deluded tbh.

 

[gordonchas]

How would spain have got on without at least three of their better players - for arguments sake lets even say just 2 Xavi and Iniesta? England were without their biggest attacking threat in Rooney, and though debatable 2 starting midfielders Lampard and Wilshere.

We did well with what we had and got as decent result against France.

Spain however, had no such injury worries (I'll counter their centre back missing with Ferdinand) yet still only got a point the same us us.

People in glass houses and all that.

My point there was not about the relative merits of either team (Spain have an eleven they left at home that could beat England) but about the perception of style.

There are several MM posters who think that Spain play boring football, despite constantly attempting to attack against massed defences, but excuse the type of the England display we saw yesterday which, along with Portugal, was the most negative of all the 16 teams.

BTW, England's 14 yesterday contained players drawn only from Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs. Hardly underdogs, especially considering France fielded a couple of Newcastle players!

 

[gordonchas]

You seem to be saying that England will have the same tactics against every nation. If they go out playing that way against Sweden, Poland, Ireland etc then yes, there will probably be a '$$$$storm'. However, if they're playing Spain, France, Germany etc this way and go out, I think the majority realise that even if they'd tried to outscore these teams, they would probably have lost anyway due to the superior talent they're facing.

If you think that England have the players to go toe to toe with the top nations then I think you're the one thats a bit deluded tbh.

Yes, I don't think there will be a big change in style in any of the games. I think both Sweden and Ukraine will have more of the game than England. I will be happy to be shown to be wrong.

Denmark, with inferior players to England, did a lot more attacking in their game against the Dutch. Italy aren't near Spain's level but had a proper go at them. Both teams got points so I don't know why you think it's necessary to bore everyone to death against supposedly superior opponents in order to get some reward.

 

[cobweb]

Yes, I don't think there will be a big change in style in any of the games. I think both Sweden and Ukraine will have more of the game than England. I will be happy to be shown to be wrong.

.

I'll be sure to bring this thread up when you are.

 

[WestChiltingtonwolf]

BTW, England's 14 yesterday contained players drawn only from Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs. Hardly underdogs, especially considering France fielded a couple of Newcastle players!

As you are talking about attacking, you are arguing that Welbeck, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Milner, Young, Gerrard and Parker are not underdogs when compared with Ribery, Nasri, Benzema, Malouda Cabaye and Diarra? Now I have heard it all.

 

[FLEET WOLF]

Like Greece in 2004 you mean? Or Chelsea in the CL?

The only way England will go far in this tournament is if they do exactly the opposite to what you're suggesting.

Boring as $$$$ then really, just like we have been for years. A team playing like England will not win the Euros, I can guarantee that. All I am saying is that we must try and show a bit more craft and guile somewhere along the line, surely?

 

[Paul76]

Considering the injuires and absence of key players and Woy only being in the job for five minutes, not too bad.

I think we'll get better as the tournament progresses. Lets just hope that we can stay in it.

 

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

Yes, I don't think there will be a big change in style in any of the games. I think both Sweden and Ukraine will have more of the game than England. I will be happy to be shown to be wrong.

Denmark, with inferior players to England, did a lot more attacking in their game against the Dutch. Italy aren't near Spain's level but had a proper go at them. Both teams got points so I don't know why you think it's necessary to bore everyone to death against supposedly superior opponents in order to get some reward.

I agree against similar teams such as Norway & Belgium,we played exactly the same and only had around 40-45% of the possession. I know we won but both had chances and alot of people agreed that if eithe read a half decent forward they'd have atleast drawn.

Sweden have one of the best forwards in the world, despite what the English media think, and Ukraine have a former European footballer of the year and judging by yesterday given a the chances he can still score.

We need to go out with an attack minded team and take the game to these teams, if we sit back and allow them to have chances, they can hurt us. Ukraine moved the ball around very well at times between their forward players but defensively they were woeful. Unfortunately it appears Roy will continue to play 442 with "two banks of four" I really had high hopes for Hodgeson but his tactics & selections haven't been what I hoped for.

 

[North West Wanderer]

We will let the game be taken to us. We are playing with pace. Counter attacking football. Possession means little.

 

[SuperTigerWolf]

As you are talking about attacking, you are arguing that Welbeck, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Milner, Young, Gerrard and Parker are not underdogs when compared with Ribery, Nasri, Benzema, Malouda Cabaye and Diarra? Now I have heard it all.

Match them up

Welbeck - Benzema - Benzema wins
Ox - Ribery - Ribery wins
Nasri - Young - Hard to call IMO
Milner - Malouda - Milner wins
Diarra - Parker - Parker wins
Gerrard - Cabaye - Gerrard wins if at best form

 

[gordonchas]

We will let the game be taken to us. We are playing with pace. Counter attacking football. Possession means little.

Counter-attack requires an attack once in a while. Three shots on goal in 90 minutes doesn't offer many options to score. Neither does not having the ball.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

Convincing wins matter not GC. Win is a win

Indeed, but the more convincing we are the better we are able to feel about things ... a scrappy, last minute 1-0 win following 89 minutes of an absolute battering and we (the fans) will probably feel very, very lucky and not particularly confident about the Ukraine game.

A 3 or 4 goal hammering of a Swedish team without them managing to score and we will all believe that things are completely different.

 

[Ulver]

Counter-attack requires an attack once in a while. Three shots on goal in 90 minutes doesn't offer many options to score. Neither does not having the ball.

Yet apart from the two goals in the game we created the clearest goal scoring chance (when Milner went around Lloris).

Additionally, Newcastle finished above Chelsea and Liverpool and with a bit of luck and one or two more good performances (led by two of their star players Cabaye & Ben Arfa) would have qualified for the Champions League. Your point is null and void.

Regarding not having the ball, Italy who you've lauded had 35% possession in their game whilst England had 39%. We did have the ball.