How did we do?

[Gordopolis]

I think it's quite clear that@RobbieD was using a figure of speech when he said "they all" - simply meaning that the QPR fans' general opinion of Dieng is positive.

[pub car king]

The main reason we went out was our forwards couldn't buy a goal.

We only took 3 forwards and one of those barely got game time despite the other 2 missing numerous chances. In all honesty Dykes never looked capable of putting it in the back of the net. 

There are a few other bits that undone us. 

The hendry marshall combination in the first game killed that match just after half time. 

Armstrong against Croatia was a big mistake. He can't play the role Clarke wanted him to and Modric wandered about freely in the middle of the park.

Clarke was too slow/reluctant to change things and rotate the squad. I think he believed it would just click.

Moving forward we do have the bulk of a good side, the defence and midfield are pretty settled when everyone is available. Up front Dykes can be used in certain situations as a blunt instrument but we need to find a goalscorer or  strike partner for Adams. 

[2426255]

6 minutes ago, pub car king said:

we need to find a goalscorer or  strike partner for Adams. 

Ryan Fraser? they linked up well against Israel, but haven't been tried together apart from that. 

[Gordopolis]

The main reason we went out was our forwards couldn't buy a goal.
We only took 3 forwards and one of those barely got game time despite the other 2 missing numerous chances. In all honesty Dykes never looked capable of putting it in the back of the net. 
There are a few other bits that undone us. 
The hendry marshall combination in the first game killed that match just after half time. 
Armstrong against Croatia was a big mistake. He can't play the role Clarke wanted him to and Modric wandered about freely in the middle of the park.
Clarke was too slow/reluctant to change things and rotate the squad. I think he believed it would just click.
Moving forward we do have the bulk of a good side, the defence and midfield are pretty settled when everyone is available. Up front Dykes can be used in certain situations as a blunt instrument but we need to find a goalscorer or  strike partner for Adams. 

Good post. It made me think back over our three games, and I don't think we had a single, clear one on one, or an occasion where we got behind their defence at all. Most of our chances were at awkward angles, and the few central ones we did have were put wide (Adams the main culprit), shot straight at the keeper (Dykes), or blocked (loads of blocks in the Czech game, though this is most probably because we were taking on shots that weren't really on out of growing frustration).
The likes of Dykes & Fraser to stretch the opposing defence or catch them on the break was never really utilised. In fact none of the three opponents ever looked vulnerable in this way.
Perhaps that is the type of game situation - facing and breaking down a canny defence - that we really need to crack.

[Binos]

17 hours ago, pub car king said:

The main reason we went out was our forwards couldn't buy a goal.

We only took 3 forwards and one of those barely got game time despite the other 2 missing numerous chances. In all honesty Dykes never looked capable of putting it in the back of the net. 

There are a few other bits that undone us. 

The hendry marshall combination in the first game killed that match just after half time. 

Armstrong against Croatia was a big mistake. He can't play the role Clarke wanted him to and Modric wandered about freely in the middle of the park.

Clarke was too slow/reluctant to change things and rotate the squad. I think he believed it would just click.

Moving forward we do have the bulk of a good side, the defence and midfield are pretty settled when everyone is available. Up front Dykes can be used in certain situations as a blunt instrument but we need to find a goalscorer or  strike partner for Adams. 

The tactics and team selections weren't right and our forwards are shit

Basically 

[Binos]

17 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Ryan Fraser? they linked up well against Israel, but haven't been tried together apart from that. 

The second half tactics against Israel should have been our blue print 

Not 5 at the back but 4 with Tierney just playing left centre half 

5 in midfield so we dominated ball and got on front foot with fraser off Adams

Not been tried since although fraser was injured but all the same was in squad 

[Boo Khaki]

18 hours ago, 2426255 said:

Ryan Fraser? they linked up well against Israel, but haven't been tried together apart from that. 

Around about the 60 minute mark in the England game I thought we we're crying out for Ryan Fraser to come on in place of Dykes. They were pushing up the pitch at that point, and there was a wee 10 minute spell or so where we kept catching them on the break in 2v2 situations, but neither Dykes nor Adams really had the wherewithal to take advantage of it. Fraser, with his ability to travel with the ball over long distances and go around a defender would have been the perfect player to exploit that situation, but Clarke persisted with Adams and the big Australian haddie for some reason. I certainly think Fraser + A.N.Other could be a reasonably effective strike force in certain circumstances.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Boo Khaki

[Lurkst]

So at the end of the competition we had two quarter finalists and a finalist in our group. 

Clarification that we were given a really tough draw.

 

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

So at the end of the competition we had two quarter finalists and a finalist in our group. 

Clarification that we were given a really tough draw.

Tragic.

[paranoid android]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Tragic.

...and yet true - we were in a tough group. 

[Old Bing]

Just now, paranoid android said:

...and yet true - we were in a tough group. 

If it weren't for that Dutch sending off then the Czechs would have been immediately eliminated, same as Croatia were. And this grasping at straws wouldn't exist.

Its as relevant as saying, we drew with England and their in the final. So we could have got to the final.

Facts are we had 2 home games and took 0 points. Playing terrible football while doing so.

Edited July 8, 2021 by BingMcCrosby

[paranoid android]

5 hours ago, BingMcCrosby said:

If it weren't for that Dutch sending off then the Czechs would have been immediately eliminated, same as Croatia were. And this grasping at straws wouldn't exist.

Its as relevant as saying, we drew with England and their in the final. So we could have got to the final.

Facts are we had 2 home games and took 0 points. Playing terrible football while doing so.

Croatia, the Czechs and England is a tough group - we didn't do well, but it was a tough group.

[Lex]

Comparing the ‘how will we do’ thread:
https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/267811-how-will-we-do/
To the how did we do thread is quite something. Far as I can see there was one person who thought we’d finish bottom of the group with one point. We failed to reach everyone else’s expectations.

[2426255]

  

On 26/05/2021 at 08:27, TheScarf said:

It's a pretty tough group.  We always struggle against the Czechs, Croatia have quality everywhere, and obviously England do too.  Our best bet for a win will be against the Czechs, they're not as good as the other 2 IMO.

On 26/05/2021 at 09:58, GordonS said:

Apart from the Slovakia and Czechia home games in October I don't see much in our recent record to inspire confidence, and losing both Jack and McLean is brutal. I'd guess a draw in one of the games at Hampden and lose the other two matches, and I think 3 defeats is more likely than one win.

But you never know.

On 26/05/2021 at 10:42, charger29 said:

Ditto. There's a glass half full/half empty way of looking at that Czech game.
On one hand we played poorly and had some of our best players missing but still found a way to win. On the other, we were nowhere near good enough for the majority of that match and on another day would have conceded 4+.
I don't think we'll end the group stages with 5+ pts but 3-4 and getting out of the group seems (not im)possible.
Unfortunately I'd say the most likely is 0-2pts. A full Hampden would have made a massive difference.

On 26/05/2021 at 08:34, Scary Bear said:

It is a tough group. On paper we look doomed.

I thought our best bet for a win could be the Croats in the last game if they manage to beat England. The Czech Republic game is the opening game for both sides and they’ll both know that a defeat is death to their chances of qualifying. Wouldn’t surprise me if it’s a draw. I’m assuming we’re looking at trying to be one of the best 3rd place teams to qualify.

That was from page one and seems in line with reality.

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by 2426255

[SpoonTon]

Like North Macedonia, for the most part we looked like a team which had qualified through a back door which probably shouldn't be there (I'm not saying we're were as bad as them, but apart from them only Turkey were worse than us). I don't think we did much to suggest the NL qualifying spots teams added anything to the tournament from a neutral's perspective. We looked a bit like a team from a lower league playing a cup match against a top flight side, we competed alright in certain respects and had plenty of spirit, but were let down by a lack of quality at both ends of the park. 

I don't think the system worked particularly well, just like it hasn't in WC qualifying so far. I don't know why we left ourselves so outnumbered in midfield against Croatia, and the back three against the Czechs lacked the quality to do the job they needed to. I do feel like we didn't do ourselves justice in those matches. Being at home, I felt like we could have made the games really difficult for the Czechs and Croatia, but in the end we only made it look like the didn't have the quality to do what we set out to do. If we had set out for three 0-0 draws, like we did at Wembley, it might have worked out better for us. 

Our weaknesses were typical weaknesses. We didn't keep the ball very well, we didn't pass the ball very well, we rushed things and tried to get plenty of shots off but didn't take time to create quality chances. I think we probably exposed ourselves to our own weaknesses in our home games a bit much. 

Overall, disappointing. I had hoped for at least 2 points. Wished for 4, 3 would have been great, only got 1 (the least expected one). If we played all three games like the one at Wembley, I think we would have just about snuck through. 

 

[Old Bing]

Just now, SpoonTon said:

Like North Macedonia, for the most part we looked like a team which had qualified through a back door which probably shouldn't be there (I'm not saying we're were as bad as them, but apart from them only Turkey were worse than us). I don't think we did much to suggest the NL qualifying spots teams added anything to the tournament from a neutral's perspective. We looked a bit like a team from a lower league playing a cup match against a top flight side, we competed alright in certain respects and had plenty of spirit, but were let down by a lack of quality at both ends of the park. 

I don't think the system worked particularly well, just like it hasn't in WC qualifying so far. I don't know why we left ourselves so outnumbered in midfield against Croatia, and the back three against the Czechs lacked the quality to do the job they needed to. I do feel like we didn't do ourselves justice in those matches. Being at home, I felt like we could have made the games really difficult for the Czechs and Croatia, but in the end we only made it look like the didn't have the quality to do what we set out to do. If we had set out for three 0-0 draws, like we did at Wembley, it might have worked out better for us. 

Our weaknesses were typical weaknesses. We didn't keep the ball very well, we didn't pass the ball very well, we rushed things and tried to get plenty of shots off but didn't take time to create quality chances. I think we probably exposed ourselves to our own weaknesses in our home games a bit much. 

Overall, disappointing. I had hoped for at least 2 points. Wished for 4, 3 would have been great, only got 1 (the least expected one). If we played all three games like the one at Wembley, I think we would have just about snuck through. 

 

We couldn't play the other games like we did against England. Croatia and the Czechs weren't pressing or attacking anything like as much.

We were given the ball to play, and we couldn't play.

[Old Bing]

4 hours ago, paranoid android said:

Croatia, the Czechs and England is a tough group - we didn't do well, but it was a tough group.

Compared to the rest of the groups, its really not. Group A and C are comparable to it. The rest of the groups were harder.

This isn't taking into account at all our 2 home games. We had it easy.

[paranoid android]

25 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

Compared to the rest of the groups, its really not. Group A and C are comparable to it. The rest of the groups were harder.

This isn't taking into account at all our 2 home games. We had it easy.

Even so, any group with Croatia, the Czechs and England in it is tough - England have made it to the final, and the other two are decent.

Tough group.

[SpoonTon]

6 minutes ago, BingMcCrosby said:

We couldn't play the other games like we did against England. Croatia and the Czechs weren't pressing or attacking anything like as much.

We were given the ball to play, and we couldn't play.

I know what you're saying. And that's why I said what I did about our weaknesses, but I didn't really mean the specific tactical approach (far from it). It's also why I criticise the back 3, and the why it doesn't work for us. There's an argument for it at Wembley, with us playing deeper and the front players being far more attuned to their defensive duties. Against the Czechs and Croatia (in the Croatia game it was criminally obvious) we were so often left outnumbered in large areas of the pitch, with particular space either left open in front of the back three or out wide. As you say, that doesn't become so much of an issue at Wembley where we're starting on the back foot with two holding midfielders and two forwards whose first aim is to defend from the front. Playing 4-2-3-1 in the Hampden games would have allowed us to be more attuned to the specific dangers of those matches, particularly against Croatia. We're not good enough at what we do to make the spare man in the back three counteract being a man down in the midfield. 

The tale of our defensive set-up in most of our recent matches, Israel and Austria included, is us being a man up inside the box and a man down outside the box - and that counting for nothing. 

 

[HalfCutNinja]

3 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

I know what you're saying. And that's why I said what I did about our weaknesses, but I didn't really mean the specific tactical approach (far from it). It's also why I criticise the back 3, and the why it doesn't work for us. There's an argument for it at Wembley, with us playing deeper and the front players being far more attuned to their defensive duties. Against the Czechs and Croatia (in the Croatia game it was criminally obvious) we were so often left outnumbered in large areas of the pitch, with particular space either left open in front of the back three or out wide. As you say, that doesn't become so much of an issue at Wembley where we're starting on the back foot with two holding midfielders and two forwards whose first aim is to defend from the front. Playing 4-2-3-1 in the Hampden games would have allowed us to be more attuned to the specific dangers of those matches, particularly against Croatia. We're not good enough at what we do to make the spare man in the back three counteract being a man down in the midfield. 

The tale of our defensive set-up in most of our recent matches, Israel and Austria included, is us being a man up inside the box and a man down outside the box - and that counting for nothing. 

 

How does a back 3 make us a man short in midfield?  There's two deep and one attacking that's 3, there are no formations we'd play that would give us more than that.