Quake3World

I've always wondered why Rooney is rated so highly too, i just do see it - in tournaments like these he invariably dissapoints. Worst player on the pitch was the defender assinged to watch Balotelli, was it Cahill? He kept losing sight of him and that's oh so very dangerous... and then there was Gerrard, who for some reason just took far too long every time he got the ball, taking the momentum out of nearly every attack. Wasn't all bad, those Sterling and Sturridge fellows were pretty impressive!

Wasn't the fault of the players as much as the predictable England tactics i feel - Italy is always going to play like this and ye olde English let's-try-to-rush-through-the-centre shit is just not going to work on a team like that. England wore itself out by headlong running into a wall for most of the match and there was just no energy left with 20 minutes left on the clock...

not entirely convinced by your analysis there, kiddo. in point of fact, England have in the past tended to attack down the sides, with the intention of crossing balls into the box (you could see the leftovers of this tactic in their pedestrian way of trying to drop corner kicks into the box) - which is ok as a tactic if you have a poacher like Shearer on the end of the ball. but since the current setup doesn't have a Shearer, but does have a couple of fast players up front, going straight at the Italian defence was the right thing to do

tl;dr - Italy were suspect in defence, and England played to their strengths and Italy's weakness, but poor quality finishing meant it didn't pay off

My point is more that swiftness of any England attack was not nearly swift enough - nearly every attack i saw gave Italy ample time to put their defenders in place. I blame Gerrard mostly for this, who took his fucking time with every ball he got. Attacking from the side is nearly pointless when there's 10 Italians in the box, might as well try to go through the centre - which is what ended up happening a lot. A good way to waste precious energy that is.

I think swift countering is the only valid option against a defending Italy - the kind where you skip your own midfield and pass directly from behind to the flankers or the striker. That way there should only be 3 or 4 Italians in the box, increasing your chances by at least 100%! *

* this might be scientificallty debatable

I don't watch a lot of footy at all, chances are i might be talking out of my arse entirely.

I will say that this England is very entertaining though! Looking forward to the next games.

Ryoki wrote:skip your own midfield and pass directly from behind to the flankers or the striker

u wot m8

the long ball game is long dead

seremtan wrote:

Ryoki wrote:skip your own midfield and pass directly from behind to the flankers or the striker

u wot m8

the long ball game is long dead

Not entirely. It's how the Netherlands beat Spain last Friday.
Van Gaal said it himself, the Dutch team can't outclass the Spanish team by using a strategy where you build up the attack from the back and quickly play the ball around to put pressure on them. That is kind of how the Dutch are used to play, but van Gaal reckoned it wouldn't hold against the Spanish. So he decided to "skip a station" and play balls directly to Van Persie or Robben and have them finish off. It's more or less like playing on the counter. And as you can see, most of the Dutch goals were made that way.

well, ok

p.s.

haha. go switzerland! robbed.

gg Germany

seremtan wrote:gg Germany

yeah. but I allways find it bad if one team gets a red card. it makes the victory worth less.

still: they played really really good. boateng was great against ronaldo.

the second half was boring though: both teams were saving their strength for the upcomming games.

After 30 seconds: USA 1 - Ghana 0

Pext wrote:

seremtan wrote:gg Germany

yeah. but I allways find it bad if one team gets a red card. it makes the victory worth less.

Müller is a great player but he'd also have earned the award for best actor on the pitch during the red-card-scene. fuckin pussy

anyone catch Nigeria vs Iran?

what a crock...

chopov wrote:After 30 seconds: USA 1 - Ghana 0

Shame they've still got to compete against Germany and Portal to get out the group stages .

seremtan wrote:anyone catch Nigeria vs Iran?

what a crock...

What was crock about it?

I heard that the USA won...

they did, but it was against the easiest team in their 4 team group.

It doesn't really matter if they make it through to the next round...personal progress is nice but the top teams out there are playing at a hilariously different level.

Until the republican party dies off and takes with it all its social barriers, 'soccer' will never really pick up in the US in order to attract bigger following, bigger budgets hence attract more capable athletes to pick up the sport and view it as a viable option to ridiculous riches fame and social status..comparable to american football and basketball.

Tsakali wrote:they did, but it was against the easiest team in their 4 team group.

and they looked like shit doing it. if they play like that against germany it'll be 8-1 (i'll still give them the 30-second "oops" goal or a lucky set piece). then again, finishing 3rd in the group would still be an improvement for the USA.

Also the MLS is the worst quality of football at an association level in the entire world.

seremtan wrote:anyone catch Nigeria vs Iran?

what a crock...

I did, watched the whole fucking thing, too... jesus christ, it was all kinds of awful. The lack of quality was painful.

Germany - Portugal was entertaining though, no thanks to Portugal.

Germany, they got the theatrics down to a tee.
Portugal, biggest hotheads on the tournament.

Great combo.

Captain Mazda wrote:

seremtan wrote:anyone catch Nigeria vs Iran?

what a crock...

What was crock about it?

the bit between the kickoff and final whistle

there was a brief non-crock period of about 15 minutes in the middle, though

Phil Neville could have actually livened this game up

Curious to see Belgium - Algeria tonight, Belgium has been getting hyped as a potential surprise in the media here but i haven't seen em play yet.

seremtan wrote:

Captain Mazda wrote:What was crock about it?

the bit between the kickoff and final whistle

there was a brief non-crock period of about 15 minutes in the middle, though

Phil Neville could have actually livened this game up

I thought they played well despite the obvious disadvantage of having sanctions forced against their country and not being able to play friendlies as a result. Nigeria is a tough matchup, they're taller and faster and deadly on the wing. Iran's counterattack was decent but there was a bit of sloppy play from both sides in the second half. Game could've been decided for either side in the first half. At least the refereeing was fair and the sportsmanship was fantastic, something the hair-pulling and headbutting Euros seem to lack when it comes to football.