| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world 08:39 - Nov 26 with 1382 views | SmithersJones |
Not suggesting for a moment that England were any good last night but realistically Brazil and France have looked a cut above everyone else. If the goal is to avoid them for as long as possible then finishing second means we do that until the semis, assuming both win their groups.
That said I think we’ll win the group, probably after a draw with Wales. |  | | |  |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:16 - Nov 26 with 1295 views | LeoMuff |
Must say Ecuador looked a very dangerous opponent yesterday, all the makings of an upset if we played them. I think we could beat Netherlands or Senegal. |  |
| |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:17 - Nov 26 with 1293 views | tractordownsouth |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:16 - Nov 26 by LeoMuff |
Must say Ecuador looked a very dangerous opponent yesterday, all the makings of an upset if we played them. I think we could beat Netherlands or Senegal. |
I've been much more impressed with Ecuador than Senegal. |  |
| |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:28 - Nov 26 with 1267 views | SmithersJones |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:16 - Nov 26 by LeoMuff |
Must say Ecuador looked a very dangerous opponent yesterday, all the makings of an upset if we played them. I think we could beat Netherlands or Senegal. |
I agree. Netherlands will probably still win the group because you’d expect them to beat Qatar and, if necessary, by more than Ecuador beat Senegal. But by the time we play Wales this (and so much else) will be clearer. | | | |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:32 - Nov 26 with 1254 views | SlippinJimmyJuan |
I don't fancy us against anyone decent, we have shown that we will just sit back through fear of being caught on the break. Let's not pretend that the US are anything other than an average side at this tournament. We gave them encouragement by simply being so passive. | |
| |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:37 - Nov 26 with 1217 views | ArnieM |
I think we need to finish top, otherwise we’ll get paired we stronger teams. |  |
| |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:56 - Nov 26 with 1182 views | SmithersJones |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 09:37 - Nov 26 by ArnieM |
I think we need to finish top, otherwise we’ll get paired we stronger teams. |
If by “stronger” you mean “finished first in their group” then that’s only a factor in the round of 16. And not sure that the group winners in group A will be significantly stronger than the second placed team. | | | |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:26 - Nov 26 with 1067 views | Ftnfwest |
Getting though the group is all that matters. The trophy isn’t won in the group. I think in terms of ranking level our group is actually the most difficult with USA being second highest at 16. The little fan boys and girls might cry if we don’t get six every game but when have we ever done that?
No question Southgate has to vary things up a bit and use his squad more. One or two look like they’re carrying knocks, Kane obviously but also Trippier who I didn’t think was supporting Saka enough in even in the first game. Not a massive Trent fan but if we can’t use him in a game against wales, when can we?
Came into this WC with zero expectation tbh and still not high but can’t stand the modern fans slagging us off all year (rightly for that) but then expecting us to win it as soon as the tournament starts. |  | | |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:36 - Nov 26 with 1051 views | LeoMuff |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:26 - Nov 26 by Ftnfwest |
Getting though the group is all that matters. The trophy isn’t won in the group. I think in terms of ranking level our group is actually the most difficult with USA being second highest at 16. The little fan boys and girls might cry if we don’t get six every game but when have we ever done that?
No question Southgate has to vary things up a bit and use his squad more. One or two look like they’re carrying knocks, Kane obviously but also Trippier who I didn’t think was supporting Saka enough in even in the first game. Not a massive Trent fan but if we can’t use him in a game against wales, when can we?
Came into this WC with zero expectation tbh and still not high but can’t stand the modern fans slagging us off all year (rightly for that) but then expecting us to win it as soon as the tournament starts. |
Look I can’t imagine there is many who think we should be outing 7 or 8 past the USA, but if you aren’t slightly concerned by that performance then Did you even watch ?
I would love to see the stats on last night as the front 3 barely had a touch during the game, the USA completely cut the supply to our attacking players and we had no idea how to counter it. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:45 - Nov 26 with 1019 views | Ftnfwest |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:36 - Nov 26 by LeoMuff |
Look I can’t imagine there is many who think we should be outing 7 or 8 past the USA, but if you aren’t slightly concerned by that performance then Did you even watch ?
I would love to see the stats on last night as the front 3 barely had a touch during the game, the USA completely cut the supply to our attacking players and we had no idea how to counter it. |
Oh we were poor, but we’ve been poor all year and yet we’re still supposed to comfortably beat everyone. Was interesting that for all their good play the USA had one shot on target compared to three for us. Now you have five sub opportunities you have to use them in tournaments, and much earlier than he does. Mind you even the kneeling looked ridiculous last night. | | | |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:50 - Nov 26 with 1012 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
I am not watching the World Cup, so it is interesting seeing the swings in reactions from an outsider perspective.
On Twitter I have seen England fans says that England will never win anything with Southgate as manager, that he is too slow to react etc etc.
From the outside: is this not classic underestimating of the opposition and failure to see the bigger picture.
Maybe USA are a lot better than they used to be? Drop the "Maybe" and the "?" They are a well drilled team who play competitive internationals in the North and Central America and Caribbean Grouping. Plenty of mid and upper mid ranking teams there. And they got through them.
Maybe Southgate was happy with "not losing" as you get no advantage in later stages from how many points you get in the group, other than a theoretically easier draw if Top. And England have a big win in the bag for goal difference, so a draw against them is fine.
A point against Wales sees England through. A small loss can still be enough, if USA beat Iran (and there will be motivation on both sides for that match!) Or they draw. Or if Iran win.
A "safety first draw and keep plenty in the tank" was the percentage, longevity in the tournament, play.
Maybe if I had had to sit through it I would have had flashbacks to Mick's Groundhog Lump Ball Head Tennis, and wouldn't be so understanding, so is there anyone who did watch it who is willing to say "Professional job done"? [Post edited 26 Nov 2022 12:02]
| | | |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 12:27 - Nov 26 with 918 views | backwaywhen |
| Finishing second in the group wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world on 11:50 - Nov 26 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I am not watching the World Cup, so it is interesting seeing the swings in reactions from an outsider perspective.
On Twitter I have seen England fans says that England will never win anything with Southgate as manager, that he is too slow to react etc etc.
From the outside: is this not classic underestimating of the opposition and failure to see the bigger picture.
Maybe USA are a lot better than they used to be? Drop the "Maybe" and the "?" They are a well drilled team who play competitive internationals in the North and Central America and Caribbean Grouping. Plenty of mid and upper mid ranking teams there. And they got through them.
Maybe Southgate was happy with "not losing" as you get no advantage in later stages from how many points you get in the group, other than a theoretically easier draw if Top. And England have a big win in the bag for goal difference, so a draw against them is fine.
A point against Wales sees England through. A small loss can still be enough, if USA beat Iran (and there will be motivation on both sides for that match!) Or they draw. Or if Iran win.
A "safety first draw and keep plenty in the tank" was the percentage, longevity in the tournament, play.
Maybe if I had had to sit through it I would have had flashbacks to Mick's Groundhog Lump Ball Head Tennis, and wouldn't be so understanding, so is there anyone who did watch it who is willing to say "Professional job done"? [Post edited 26 Nov 2022 12:02]
|
Yes USA have got better , as the majority of the rest have , thrashings at international level are few and far between nowadays,
Plus factor in that USA are a bit of a World Cup bogey for England . | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
