Yeah, he improved after he got benched but I don't think that he was as good as on 2011-2012. On 2012-2013 he was really awful and he started last season on that bad form.
England at World Cup 2014
- Thread starter gooDevil
- Start date
1st and 2nd Gif of Neuer just showed his class because he broke down a possible counter attack.
3rd one was a huge mistake but all Keeps do this. Even Buffon or Courtois.
Do you want me to search for some "bad highlights" of those two?
Its nitpicking.
Both Neuer and Cassilas are great keepers otherwise they wouldnt have been selected World Goalkeeper.
Im not saying Buffon now is hot and Courtois has talent.
But you say Neuer and Cassilas are shit and those other two are the greatest alive. I cant agree with that lol.
3rd one was a huge mistake but all Keeps do this. Even Buffon or Courtois.
Do you want me to search for some "bad highlights" of those two?
Its nitpicking.
Both Neuer and Cassilas are great keepers otherwise they wouldnt have been selected World Goalkeeper.
Im not saying Buffon now is hot and Courtois has talent.
But you say Neuer and Cassilas are shit and those other two are the greatest alive. I cant agree with that lol.
Those gifs are amazing, are you on the wind up or what? I can make a massive list of Neuer cock up gifs but i'd probably be banned for flooding, he made usual 3 against United 1st leg and we only had about 3 attacks.
Maybe you are underrating Hart? City's first Premier League win he was like a wall and had people talking about him as the best in the world, then he dropped he few clangers and the ABE brigade went OTT with his criticism, just as they always when anyone English get hyped.
Yet Hart makes the odd few clangers and you mention 2 goal keepers who are prone to SEVERAL clangers PER GAME as the best in the world, your way of thinking makes no sense and then you have to cheek to question my football knowledge, when you also said Buffon (who is just a boss of a goalkeeper) is "past his best" what you on lad?
Do you realize how important for a team with a high defense is to have a sweeper as a keeper. Similarily to Valdez, Neuer is good at it (although his passing isn't that good) and save their arses by doing those crazy challenges. While at times they may cost - like against Monchengladbach on the first game for Bayern which is also the only case I remember - many other times those challenges save points for Bayern. On the first two cases Bayern needed a goal while there wasn't much time so he was just helping the team.
I don't think that I am underrating Hart. He was very good on the first City title but the best keeper in the world label was nonsense. Currently he isn't anywhere near the best keeper on the world - despite the decent second half of the season - with Neuer, De Gea, Buffon, Courtuis, Casillas and Cech being comfortably better.
I don't know when I said that Buffon is past his best, although I may agree with that. He isn't as good as he was 5-10 years ago but at that time he was one of the best ever. Still better than Hart IMO.
Finally Neuer and Casillas don't make several mistakes per game. If you look at goals that their team have conceded because of them, I am sure that they'll be better than Hart in that category.
England probably more than any other team we can see either do VERY well or bomb out miserably.
Is it just me who is generally hating the United bashing by the general football fan population and pundits alike? I feel as though the ABU rhetoric has carried momentum into the World Cup. United's best number 10 in Rooney is getting a hounding of abuse on twitter and stuff.
Not only this but ITV being provocative in asking for a twitter poll to whether people would start Sterling or Welbeck against Italy. 84% to Sterling. Utterly bizarre considering he lacks composure at the best of times, let alone the fact he has never played on any sort of big stage. England don't have a better player in the spoiler role who can track back with pace and energy on Pirlo and then still have the legs to get forward. He did it against Xabi Alonso in 2013, much in the same way Park Ji-Sung did against Pirlo in 2009.
Not only this but ITV being provocative in asking for a twitter poll to whether people would start Sterling or Welbeck against Italy. 84% to Sterling. Utterly bizarre considering he lacks composure at the best of times, let alone the fact he has never played on any sort of big stage. England don't have a better player in the spoiler role who can track back with pace and energy on Pirlo and then still have the legs to get forward. He did it against Xabi Alonso in 2013, much in the same way Park Ji-Sung did against Pirlo in 2009.
They aren't half moaning about the state of the pitch. I've not seen anything for Italy about it.
They should just concentrate on playing.
They should just concentrate on playing.
I think you're confusing the two of them.
It's always the same. It's why I can barely support England. I would rather see Welbeck light the tournament on fire and prove his doubters wrong, than England actually win.
Not really. I see the potential of Sterling for sure and maybe it's just the Liverpool games I've watched but he seems to squander some great chances.
Same. It's a stupid poll by ITV anyway, I thought Welbeck was a strong injury doubt and wouldn't start even if training.
So, same team against Uruguay?
I doubt Roy will make the hard choices. I'd think maybe Wilshere for Gerrard, Shaw for Baines (if he's not going to attack what's the point?) and anyone for Glen Johnson.
I doubt Roy will make the hard choices. I'd think maybe Wilshere for Gerrard, Shaw for Baines (if he's not going to attack what's the point?) and anyone for Glen Johnson.
England did much better against Italy than I expected. Sterling was immense, Welbeck was very good, Sturridge was quite dangerous. I think in next games England should play them up front and Henderson-Gerrard-Barkley in the middle. I’m not sure if Rooney starting is what England need right now, it seems there are better players at almost every position. Or just stick him as number 9 and play Sturridge-Sterling as inverted wingers.
Even though Sturridge played well and may score a few goals at this tournament, I think England would benefit if they played Rooney up top instead of him. It might sound strange considering the seasons they both had but if you look at their records as a #9 this season it shows Rooney was prolific too. Rooney scored 8 goals in 11 league starts when he played up front and in general has been a consistent goalscorer from that position. According to WhoScored Sturridge scored 15 goals in 24 starts from there.
If not then he'll have to be dropped because he doesn't add enough from the left. Oxlade-Chamberlain could come in?
If not then he'll have to be dropped because he doesn't add enough from the left. Oxlade-Chamberlain could come in?
I think Rooney has to play as a 10, but as a traditional English 10 and not the modern, more technical interpretation of it, in other words up front as an out and out second striker
I realize that will never ever happen really, but i just wonder if Hodgson could play a 3-5-2 with England. Honestly, i've said it about MU in LVG's tactic thread, and that was before Spain-Holland.
And i think similar arguments apply to England. The central partnership is not great, Jagielka and Cahil are fine players, but that's not a Rio-Terry partnership, not one bit really. So having 3 CBs would make sense, Jones for example would eject some pace into defense. Englands' fullbacks are more suited to be wings backs, they both fine in attack, yet lack in defense. It's more suited formation for midfield trio of Gerrard-Hendo-Sterling. The guys like Lallana, Ox, Barkley, Sterling it's clear they are actually more suited for a central role, rather than wingers. England can utilize Rooney and Sturridge as well, they both will work channels just fine when needed. Sterling, Ox could also be used as a replacements for forward duo as well as Welbeck who is actually much more suited for a CF role in 3-5-2 than a right/left winger in 4-5-1.
It's too late now, but clearly this formation has a potential for England's set-up. And it's not a defensive one, it just a counter attacking one, made for quick breaks and direct, pacy football. All this idea to learn to play possession based game in 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1 is useless really. England don't really have players for that.
And i think similar arguments apply to England. The central partnership is not great, Jagielka and Cahil are fine players, but that's not a Rio-Terry partnership, not one bit really. So having 3 CBs would make sense, Jones for example would eject some pace into defense. Englands' fullbacks are more suited to be wings backs, they both fine in attack, yet lack in defense. It's more suited formation for midfield trio of Gerrard-Hendo-Sterling. The guys like Lallana, Ox, Barkley, Sterling it's clear they are actually more suited for a central role, rather than wingers. England can utilize Rooney and Sturridge as well, they both will work channels just fine when needed. Sterling, Ox could also be used as a replacements for forward duo as well as Welbeck who is actually much more suited for a CF role in 3-5-2 than a right/left winger in 4-5-1.
It's too late now, but clearly this formation has a potential for England's set-up. And it's not a defensive one, it just a counter attacking one, made for quick breaks and direct, pacy football. All this idea to learn to play possession based game in 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1 is useless really. England don't really have players for that.
I said this the other day mate would be a great fit for the current England squad but with Hodgson in charge there is no chance he play that.
think england biggest problem is they don't have a single defensive midfielder in the squad.... means the back four is going tp be totally exposed.
Don't think there's nearly been enough criticism for Hodgson. He's proven which level of a manger he is. He's England's David Moyes and with him, we'll always struggle to beat the big teams just like United did under Moyes.
Happy with England on the ball yesterday, but I wasn't too convinced off it. Yet again, we give the Italian midifelders too much time on the ball, and there were players constantly popping up into the pockets of space, in behind Gerrard and Henderson. This is why ideally I would have liked a 3 man midfield, with someone protecting the back four.
Thankfully, in Uruguay and Costa Rica, I don't think we'll come up with a team that play with literally 4/5 centre midfielders, as Candreva and Marchisio were constantly cutting infield. Therefore, I feel we'd be able to get away with playing the same system against Uruguay and Costa Rica, as we looked pretty threatening in the final third.
I would personally play the same personnel against Uruguay if all of our players are fit, but Rooney behind Sturridge and Sterling on the wing.
Thankfully, in Uruguay and Costa Rica, I don't think we'll come up with a team that play with literally 4/5 centre midfielders, as Candreva and Marchisio were constantly cutting infield. Therefore, I feel we'd be able to get away with playing the same system against Uruguay and Costa Rica, as we looked pretty threatening in the final third.
I would personally play the same personnel against Uruguay if all of our players are fit, but Rooney behind Sturridge and Sterling on the wing.
Hart
Johnson - Cahill - Jagielka - Baines
Henderson - Gerrard
Sterling - Rooney - Welbeck
Sturridge
Johnson - Cahill - Jagielka - Baines
Henderson - Gerrard
Sterling - Rooney - Welbeck
Sturridge
Looking forward to the Uruguay game, even if it we're in a more difficult position than we should have been.
Felt the players did themselves pretty proud against Italy but Hodgson had a bit of a mare with his subs. Welbeck and Henderson shouldn't have been taken off and it was daft not to keep a sub spare for the last 10mins given the way our players were tiring. Lambert should have been used also.
Felt the players did themselves pretty proud against Italy but Hodgson had a bit of a mare with his subs. Welbeck and Henderson shouldn't have been taken off and it was daft not to keep a sub spare for the last 10mins given the way our players were tiring. Lambert should have been used also.
Proof that stats are useless.
Thinking about it I reckon our game on Thursday might be a bit of a slow burner - but should be fascinating tactically.
Uruguay have shown several times in recent years that a) when they're up against they sit deep and b) they're much better when they play like that. Given that, and the mismatch in pace between their centre backs and our attackers, I reckon they'll sit very deep most of the game and rely on Cavani/Forlan/Suarez to get a goal on the counter.
England look a bit more progressive than that, but still don't look like a team set up to dominate possession over 90 minutes. They still look like a counter attacking side. Given that, and the fact that defensively we don't look great and may be up against Suarez, I think we'll avoid committing too many men forward too early in the game.
Recipe for a nil-nil so far - however the wild card is that Italy-Costa Rica is not played until the following day. If England knew that Italy had beaten Costa Rica they could live with a draw, knowing that a win against Costa Rica would more likely than not put them through. Trouble is they don't, and not only that, but Italy and Costa Rica will know the result. If England-Uruguay draw, then an Italy-Costa Rica draw would mean both teams only need a draw in their last game to go through - neither will want to take risks and would probably take a nil-nil (there's no great benefit to topping our group).
The upshot - a draw is no good for either team, but neither team will want to chase the game. I suspect we'll see a very tight first 60-70 minutes, with both teams going at it in the final stages (assuming the score stays level til then).
Uruguay have shown several times in recent years that a) when they're up against they sit deep and b) they're much better when they play like that. Given that, and the mismatch in pace between their centre backs and our attackers, I reckon they'll sit very deep most of the game and rely on Cavani/Forlan/Suarez to get a goal on the counter.
England look a bit more progressive than that, but still don't look like a team set up to dominate possession over 90 minutes. They still look like a counter attacking side. Given that, and the fact that defensively we don't look great and may be up against Suarez, I think we'll avoid committing too many men forward too early in the game.
Recipe for a nil-nil so far - however the wild card is that Italy-Costa Rica is not played until the following day. If England knew that Italy had beaten Costa Rica they could live with a draw, knowing that a win against Costa Rica would more likely than not put them through. Trouble is they don't, and not only that, but Italy and Costa Rica will know the result. If England-Uruguay draw, then an Italy-Costa Rica draw would mean both teams only need a draw in their last game to go through - neither will want to take risks and would probably take a nil-nil (there's no great benefit to topping our group).
The upshot - a draw is no good for either team, but neither team will want to chase the game. I suspect we'll see a very tight first 60-70 minutes, with both teams going at it in the final stages (assuming the score stays level til then).
Gerrard mouthing off about how hard it will be for Uruguay. Just shut the feck up, do the job, then tell us about it after it's done.
if only he plays as well as he talks.
Wonder how many will pull up with cramp on Thursday. I worry that Suarez could kill the game in the first half with a couple of goals and England won't have the legs to fight back.
Italy will want to beat Costa Rica. They won't want to chance nicking a point off Uruguay in the last game with them looking for a win. The biggest worry for England is if Italy beat Costa Rica, the final game they can just take it easy and rest players, and with Uruguay desperate for a win it would mean it could come down to goal difference ( assuming England also beat Costa Rica which is by no means certain).
Mental
theoretically that is probably our strongest team, but in practice we'd have a midfield three, two of whom are Rooney & Gerrard. I think you can only have one of them in there as it is asking too much of Henderson to babysit two other players who for various reasons aren't well rounded midfield players. I'd rather see Chamberlain alongside Henderson and if one of Rooney or Sturridge has to drop out to accommodate him, so be it.
England played pretty damn well and should have won. The subs were baffling but rarely do you ever see England pin the other team back for long periods. They were all knackered but they still kept possession well which is a good sign.
I think England should focus on counter attacking though. The speed they have is impressive and rooney and Gerrard may not be fast but can function well in a fast counter.
Sterling, Welbeck and Sturridge running at you is devastating.
I think England should focus on counter attacking though. The speed they have is impressive and rooney and Gerrard may not be fast but can function well in a fast counter.
Sterling, Welbeck and Sturridge running at you is devastating.
Taking Welbeck and Henderson off is where we lost it. I'm convinced if you'd have left both on, we would have at least got a draw.
Why isn't the media on Hodgson's back anyway? He really hasn't done a great job so far. Better managers than him have been criticised and even sacked for much less. I'll never be confident with England against the bigger teams with Hodgson at the helm.
Why isn't the media on Hodgson's back anyway? He really hasn't done a great job so far. Better managers than him have been criticised and even sacked for much less. I'll never be confident with England against the bigger teams with Hodgson at the helm.
Hodgson has avoided a lot of media criticism which is very strange, He hasn't necessarily done a bad job but England will never come close to winning anything with him in charge his subs are usually the wrong choices very shocked he should have brought Lambert on.
yep, and Sturridge having to come off injured was the nail in the coffin. im in shock 3 subs were used and rooney escaped all of them
In hindsight I would've probably put Shaw and Lambert on and pushed Baines to LM and just put crosses into the box. The Italians has so many numbers in the middle that it was frustrating to see our players try to play through it only to get crowded out. Baines could've put some excellent crosses in and if we got players in the box it we would have surely got a lot closer to scoring. I know some people will say its regressive but you have to assess the situation in a game and set tactics accordingly.