Match 23: England vs Algeria, June 18 PBP & Post Match Thread [R]

Re: Match 23: England vs Algeria, June 18 PBP Thread [R]

That was a very good game dafancively and even in the midfield we weren't bad at all, the proof 53% of ball possission, we didnt see rooney, Gerrard an Lampard neither we could have played more offencive if we had a real striker (the coach bring 3 striker the first got a red card the other is not scoring the third is 35 and he does to south africa just for tourism), hopefuly he will do some thing in the next game because we need to score and win.

Re: Match 23: England vs Algeria, June 18 PBP Thread [R]

No, it is different.
Those other countries, are certainly satisfying to beat but purely on satisfaction of play basis. To beat the English is to make every one of their journalists eat crow.
England makes a big thing about being the birthplace and guardians of the game. The like to claim that their Premier league is the epitome of national leagues in the world.

To beat England is to climb Olympus and steal fire. It is stealing the golden fleece. There is a psychological edge to beating England in a world cup. You get to silence the whole propaganda machine(fans and media) that surrounds English football.

Re: Match 23: England vs Algeria, June 18 PBP Thread [R]

You are missing my analogy about Toronto. I'm not saying the team is good or anything. I'm saying that all the Canadian players from the other teams get UP for a game against the Leafs on Saturday night, because they know it is on Coast to Coast TV in Canada, and their friends and relatives will all be watching. In some other NHL cities league even hometown stars don't get recognized on the street. In Toronto, third line players from other teams get hounded for autographs.

In a similar way playing against England is playing under the microscope. Every move will be endlessly dissected by the plentiful and voracious English media. The arrogant English fans, will also read and dissect.

The pressures of playing for the Leafs in the center of the largest media market in the most hockey mad nation in the world it extreme. They too dissect endlessly, and comment overly. The analogy is about playing against the team the lives in the place that claims to be the birthplace of the game. It has nothing to do with the quality of the Leafs.

The analogy stands. Leaf's play in the largest media market in Canada. The English football press outnumber the numbers of players in some other countries.

Sure there is pressure in other places, and media too. I'm just saying that there is the added pressure of playing in front of the media representing the birthplace of the game.

CONCACAF - 40 teams
AFC - 47 teams
CAF - 53 teams

I'm not sure 7 more AFC teams is "many more countries" than CONCACAF. I'll give you 13 more in CAF though.

well most of the those CONCACAF teams are Islands that play once every 2 years or so, and have FAs only for the purpose of giving votes to Jack Warner.

Re: Match 23: England vs Algeria, June 18 PBP Thread [R]

Aside from Mexico and a few random players from other countries, the player talent pool from Concacaf is not a pimple on the arse of CAF the past 20 years.

So boring game I managed to fall asleep two times during the match and between my short wake up I checked out that there was still 0:0 so nothing I missed

For the English on here that say the "EASY" headline was just media hype, and that most English fans truly respected the rest of the group, and expected to have a tough time going through the group, I call bullsh*t.

As to getting through the qualifying group so easily, I suppose you chalk it up to being in good form then, and poor form now. Maybe the long and hard EPL season has taken its toll on the players.

But to say the media pressure is too much... that's basically saying the guys on the team are mentally weak. And maybe that's absolutely right.

I kinda wonder if England will qualify by beating Slovenia.
I really doubt that.

Slovenia will be fielding their full first team lineup.

I'm not so confident in Slovenia. They clearly have holes, and are susceptible to speed and on set plays. I think Heskey and Lennon could wreak havoc on their defense.

That being said, I'm pulling for a 0-0 tie.

Heskey and Lennon can't wreak havoc on anyone because they are not any good.

You seem to forget that Heskey set up the England goal.

Lennon is very good, but he hasn't been in sync with the rest of the attack. He's also not being played in quickly enough to get one-on-one opportunities against the LB. It will be interesting to see how Jokic handles him.

Heskey's a hack.

England has looks remarakably unremarkable.

Maybe they can pull it together, but I think they are going to have a hard time getting past Slovenia.

Lennon would be lucky to be considered in the top 20 of the starting right mids in this tourney. Heskey is old and slow and a waste of space. A different coach doesn't even bring him and instead brings Bent or someone else.

I expect England to beat Slovenia and go through to the quarters. But it is not going to be because of the play of Aaron Lennon and Emile Heskey.

Bent is a one-dimensional striker, hard-working guy, but not international quality. I just rewatched the England-Algeria game, and Lennon looked ok. Actually sent a dangerous cross in right before he was yanked for SWP, which I don't understand at all.

If England scores against Slovenia, I think Heskey will be a big part of it. I don't think Shuler or Ceasar can really handle his physicality (heck, Altidore gave them fits).

this is an amazing vid of how Capello was getting mad in Algeria game

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z8NBd-03Yk"]YouTube- Capello getting mad against Algeria[/ame]

What's he saying? "Azz-hole... azz-hole..."?

Oh no, it's 'Pass de boll! Pass de boll!'

Your idea of "international quality" is not well-defined. I mean you seem to think Emile Heskey, who is not on the list of the top 300 strikers on the planet, and scored only five goals in all competitions last season, is "international quality" while Darren Bent is not.

Heskey has a specific role that has (until now) worked well for England. He links well with Rooney and Gerrard, and works hard to come back to the midfield to win balls. He's very good as a hold-up center forward, winning balls in the air and earning fouls with his physicality. He is a poor shooter, and doesn't score many goals. But as with the US attack, England relies on midfielders to score goals (Lampard, Gerrard, Lennon on occasion). And of course his main job is to set up Rooney.

Bent is an out-and-out poacher who relies heavily on good service to put the ball in the back of the net. Given that England play mostly directly, and lack a true creative playmaker in midfield (aside from Cole), Bent's strengths are negated.

I guess the big reason Capello left Bent out and Heskey in is because Heskey and Rooney played very well together in qualifying, and Bent didn't participate. It takes a pretty ballsy coach to put in a guy who's barely tested at the international level into the WC (another reason I give big props to Bradley for taking Buddle, Gomez, and Findley).

All that said, no one should be surprised at all that England finally won a game with Heskey to the bench and the goal scored by his replacement.

Thank FIFA that you guys were even seeded for this tournament instead of blaming Heskey and what not.

Not that it will matter - going past Germany will be very tough but then England has a history of winning world cups with referees on their side - so anything is possible.