Jump to content

England

bobthespider

By bobthespider
in Misc Other Fitba Chat

Recommended Posts

yoda

yoda

Posted
Posted

There's a brief interview with Mark Noble on The Guardian website today. From an objective point of view I have no idea how Roy Hodgson is even considering picking a half-fit (and injury prone) Jack Wilshere ahead of Mark Noble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 408
  • Created
  • Last Reply
port-ton

port-ton

Posted
Posted

the same as they do in most tournaments, made no difference whatsoever. Shute team shite managr group stage exit, noting to do with anything else. They patently don't have as good a chance if they lose one of their best players, it's a very simple point you seem to have extreme difficulty accepting. Again displaying your lack of understanding I picked 20 deliberately as that's about right, there will be 5 that are not. To get to the top of a competitive contact sport like that they're virtually all alpha types to varying degrees

 

They had a better team than Algeria, USA and Slovenia, and one of the most successful managers in the modern era of football. Added to that their levels of professionalism that mere mortals cant even begin to comprehend then surely they should have performed better?

 

I have difficulty accepting it because it's clearly not true, just like i have difficulty accepting anything you say because it's all clearly not true. If you replace Benzema with one of your many footballing mates then obviously it lessens their chances of winning, but when he's replaced with someone who is still better than the opposition they are facing have, coupled with the excellent all round squad they have then their chances of success are just as good.

 

Sorry for my lack of understanding of you plucking a completely random number from the top of your head and passing it off as fact, how silly of me. Varying degrees of Alpha male? just how wide are you pushing this spectrum to suit your argument?

 

Every squad is different, so yet again your zero fact based analysis doesn't hold up. I know just as little as you clearly do on the subject, but my estimate would be that in the majority of squads the number of Alpha males would be closer to the 5 out of 25 being Alpha than the 20 out of 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
port-ton

port-ton

Posted
Posted

There's a brief interview with Mark Noble on The Guardian website today. From an objective point of view I have no idea how Roy Hodgson is even considering picking a half-fit (and injury prone) Jack Wilshere ahead of Mark Noble.

 

Hodgson compared Noble to being a flavour of the month player people beg to get capped just like Grant Holt, despite the fact he's been West Ham captain for years and performing excellently in the Premier League consistently that whole time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peppino Impastato

Peppino Impastato

Posted
Posted
There's a brief interview with Mark Noble on The Guardian website today. From an objective point of view I have no idea how Roy Hodgson is even considering picking a half-fit (and injury prone) Jack Wilshere ahead of Mark Noble.
There's a brief interview with Mark Noble on The Guardian website today. From an objective point of view I have no idea how Roy Hodgson is even considering picking a half-fit (and injury prone) Jack Wilshere ahead of Mark Noble.
Well he is a much better player so you'd give him every chance and Hodgson loves wilshere. Why am I talking about England anyway though I don't give a shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
berwick-the-unbeatable

berwick-the-unbeatable

Posted
Posted

World class lol

Enjoyed the England game the other night but not confident about our chances. As many have already alluded to Rooney will transform that side. He lacks the positional discipline to lead the line and no longer has the intensity which the likes of Vardy possess to make up for it. When he plays too much goes through him and whereas a Vardy or Kane will either find or create space, he effectively kills it.

The fact is though we could leave him out and we still wouldn't win it. It might be the difference between getting out of the groups or getting past the first knockout round, but that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
port-ton

port-ton

Posted
Posted

Are people saying England are amongst the favourites because they beat a Germany team who were largely shite in qualifying?

 

I'd imagine they are saying they're among the favourites because they have a balanced squad with young, talented and most importantly in form players, along with numerous match winners in their squad. Couple that with a few of the other top nations being on a downward trajectory and in a bit of a transitional phase and there's no reason why England shouldn't be at least in the conversation.

 

Looking at the other potential winners we have;

 

Germany - As you say they were largely shite in qualifying. They lack a real world class striker, their fullbacks are an area of weakness and for two years now they have lacked motivation and concentration at key times since winning the world cup. They could easily turn it back on at the tournament like they usually do, but it's not a given.

 

Spain - In a transitional period, with an ageing squad and no striker worth the name due to Diego Costa's horrific failure at international level. If 35 year old Aduriz pulls off a wonderful tournament in some sort of fairytale story then perhaps they could have success. Football has evolved slightly since Spain were on top, and they are missing a few  types of players in key areas to really catch up with the times. 

 

France - By far the most in depth and quality filled squad. Top players, mixed with youth and experience all through the whole squad of 23. Couple that with being on home soil and they will be the ones to beat, but in knockout football anything can happen in one game so it's by no means a given.

 

Belgium - World Number one team in the world just now, but just like with the season before the 2014 world cup, a decent number of their squad are injured or out of form. Will Kompany be fit? who knows. Will Hazard play like 2014/15 Hazard or 2015/16 Hazard.

 

Italy - Another team in a transitional period, lacking any of the huge names of the past and relying on the goals of Graziano Pelle to steer them to success. They're a tournament team just like Germany so who knows what to expect but they definitely lack the depth in quality of some of the other contenders.

 

England - A few extremely talented youngsters coming through that have reinvigorated the whole squad and the nation, they have more depth of squad than i can ever remember but most importantly for me, compared to other teams they have options upon options of potential goal scorers in Kane, Vardy, Sturridge, Rooney and even Welbeck and that at least means they should be taken seriously as contenders for the first time in a long time. A real weakness at the back, especially at Centreback but if they can hold themselves together for a tournament then who knows what will happen.

 

 

Any one of those teams could win it, as could a number of other nations if they hit form at the right time, but when you compare England to any other team in the tournament i don't see how you can look at it and suggest that they shouldn't be considered one of the favourites to win it. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is only doing so out of their dislike for England and their willingness for them to fail miserably and not looking objectively at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ross.

Ross.

Posted
Posted

I'd imagine they are saying they're among the favourites because they have a balanced squad with young, talented and most importantly in form players, along with numerous match winners in their squad. Couple that with a few of the other top nations being on a downward trajectory and in a bit of a transitional phase and there's no reason why England shouldn't be at least in the conversation.

 

Any one of those teams could win it, as could a number of other nations if they hit form at the right time, but when you compare England to any other team in the tournament i don't see how you can look at it and suggest that they shouldn't be considered one of the favourites to win it. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that is only doing so out of their dislike for England and their willingness for them to fail miserably and not looking objectively at it.

 

I agree with you that France look to be the standout team and that Belgium will struggle to meet their potential, largely due to the likely absence of Kompany through injury. I don't get the hype over England though. They qualified easily, but probably had the weakest qualification group, with only the Swiss who were in transition after losing one of the best coaches in the game having any kind of quality. They have had two good results in friendlies v France and Germany, but their performances in both games were poor, and they were gubbed by Spain who I think are the team likeliest to challenge France for the title.

 

Their squad looks weak defensively and over reliant on players producing something from nothing, which is fine and well when it happens, but is hardly something you can rely on.

 

I think they will easily get to the quarters, but anything further will be a big shock to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peppino Impastato

Peppino Impastato

Posted
Posted
They had a better team than Algeria, USA and Slovenia, and one of the most successful managers in the modern era of football. Added to that their levels of professionalism that mere mortals cant even begin to comprehend then surely they should have performed better?

 

I have difficulty accepting it because it's clearly not true, just like i have difficulty accepting anything you say because it's all clearly not true. If you replace Benzema with one of your many footballing mates then obviously it lessens their chances of winning, but when he's replaced with someone who is still better than the opposition they are facing have, coupled with the excellent all round squad they have then their chances of success are just as good.

 

Sorry for my lack of understanding of you plucking a completely random number from the top of your head and passing it off as fact, how silly of me. Varying degrees of Alpha male? just how wide are you pushing this spectrum to suit your argument?

you're at it again their chances couldn't possibly be 'just as good' without benzene, that's literally impossible.

As for benzemas troubles with other members of the squad being so damaging they're better off without him, as you said, would Francehhave him in the squad if they could?

Yes they would rendering your point nonsense.

And you obviously don't know many top footballers, through my job I've met many probably hundreds, about 20 England internationals for example. They're all alpha males, all that type, you can't get to the top if you're not.

see yo

 

Every squad is different, so yet again your zero fact based analysis doesn't hold up. I know just as little as you clearly do on the subject, but my estimate would be that in the majority of squads the number of Alpha males would be closer to the 5 out of 25 being Alpha than the 20 out of 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
port-ton

port-ton

Posted
Posted

Oh fast I can't be arsed sorting that it takes so long. My reply is in the middle of your post. Apologies.

 

I can't be bothered reading through it as i've moved on from that discussion. No point beating a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...