3rd Place Match: Belgium vs England, July 14 [R]

Will they play starters? Or perhaps give coming youngsters or players that havent played so far a chance?

 

Generally countries that are "happy to be there" play their strongest squads, whereas those that expected to be in the final play subs. Either way, the third place match is usually a good, open, fun game, much more relaxed than the final. Looking forward to it.

 

While 3rd place isn't much of a prize for any team that would have been considered a top contender to win the title, I don't think that should apply to either Belgium or England. They once played one another in a game neither took all that seriously in the group stage. Hope this time it will be different. Both have something to prove still.

 

Looking back at the final group game I'd say Southgate isn't being completely honest. That was definitely a questionable performance.
Martinez OTOH was brutally honest before that game, resting ten of his starters, as he said he'd do, and even admitted that winning wasn't a priority. Imagine hearing that from an opponent's manager and still England get beaten.

Martinez won't rest his starters this time round because squaddies already received opportunities against England in the final group game. Also, it sounded like Martinez is hoping Southgate will play an actual game of football ... so we can leave Russia with one more game to really enjoy. Let's see if England actually turn up and don't cower in the back. The World Cup title isn't at stake, it should be an attractive game.

 

Lots of reserves, including 'keepers will get a thank you run out. Hopefully it will be a lot fun.

 

I think England will have a huge advantage in this match. The Spurs players will have plenty of experience in losing semifinals and contending for 3rd / 4th place. Meanwhile, most of the Belgian players only have experience in playing for 1st.

 

Not much chance of that, in the eyes of the self-appointed Belgian judges of pure football.

 

There is no 3rd/4th place in any club competition that Spurs have ever played in.

 

England made 9 changes also. England just weren't disrespectful to the game by openly saying they didn't care about the result. I think instead Southgate said it was nice to be in a situation where they'd already qualified and it didn't matter. It was a non-game from both sides. Utterly pointless. As tomorrow will be. England would be mad to play the full first team with just two days rest between fixtures following a 120 minute match. Southgate cannot risk the players' health for a non-match ahead of the club season starting on Friday 10 August. Charity Shield on 5 August.

I'd expect both full backs to change. Trippier was injured on Wednesday. Rose should start also. If Kane is fully fit he will want to start to try and score one more towards the Golden Boot. Depending on fitness the back three may be retained or one changed. I expect Southgate will stick with Pickford as changing the goalie would be an obvious signal of not caring at all about the result. I'd play Loftus-Cheek in place of Alli. Possibly start Rashford in place of Sterling. Dier in place of Henderson? Maybe. Four changes minimum and up to seven. This match should really allow extra substitutions, say, five. I'm surprised this match is still played. People remember who the semi-finalists are and quote who made it to that stage. No-one cares who won the 3rd place match. Just look how little discussion there is on here for evidence of that.

 

Its rather incredible that the England and Belgium B teams could face each other twice in the same WC! The odds of that happening are so minuscule I don't even need to check the history books to see if its happened before. It hasn't.

 

Martinez, expecting England to bunker in the upcoming game, is right to call on Southgate not to play too negatively. The title isn't at stake and these sort of games are usually fun to watch. DONOT disappoint us, England, don't cower in the back and instead give us an entertaining game for once.

Southgate before the (final group) game emphasized how important it was to maintain a winning mentality, how important momentum was and made more of those sort of pretences. His actions spoke louder than his disingenuous words. Very disrespectful. Subbing in Welbeck should constitute a crime against the game in itself (kidding aside, Southgate could as well have spoken frankly because he did nothing to hide it on the pitch). His body language and his excuses in the post-game interview were good for a laugh too. Not only did Martinez get his priorities straight, he was open about it and, with respect for the game, he won it ... and went on to give us some memorable moments. In the end England had the golden ticket, one of, if not the easiest path ever to the final, yet they bottled it. Croatia were the first decent side they had to face, it was even Croatia's 3rd straight game that went to extra time while England could sleepwalk through every game except a James-less Colombia and the nervy opener against Tunisia, relying on set pieces and lots of pens to beat weaker teams, yet England still failed.

In case England lose the 3rd place game they'll have 3 losses, 1 draw and 3 wins. Those 3 wins were against lowly Panama, Tunisia and Sweden. Not great. Sure the 3rd place game is basically meaningless but should you really start looking for excuses, before the game has even been played, with such a poor record? Besides there are bragging rights for the players, as so many play in the PL, and they should at the very least show an inkling of professional pride. Hopefully Southgate's words are a bit less disingenuous this time round:

@Steve Page

 

Having checked on the England board nobody is interested in tomorrow's match. Nobody is interested at work today either.

In the 1982 World Cup we beat France, Czechoslovakia and Kuwait and then drew with Spain in the Bernabeu and West Germany yet went out undefeated. France reached the Semi-Final for that infamous match with West Germany where Schumacher took out Battiston and that the Germans won on penalties. All that matters in the end is where you finish. We've finished as semi-finalists and the tournament ended for us on Wednesday night. Croatia and France have the opportunity to win the trophy on Sunday. Southgate is talking platitudes like a salesman who has a shoddy product to sell.

No-one doubts that Belgium are the better team. They should really have avoided beating England as they would have had a better chance of reaching the final. Unless we're wrong and Croatia turn out to be better than France.

 

Well, I'd rather watch a lively game but it's up to Southgate if England play ultra-defensively or not.
Also, this game is his last chance to prepare for England's Nations League opener against Spain. Southgate should make the best use of it. As the Nations League is a cut-throat competition, with one of Spain, England or Croatia being relegated, every game is crucial (plus there are EURO2020 berths on offer and the NL ranking will decide seeding). Luis Enrique will also have to prove he can get Spain back on track. For Martinez and Belgium, it wouldn't be the worst scenario if England sit, pack and park TBF. Belgium first play a friendly with Scotland to prepare for our opener against Iceland. Still I've seen too many cagey borefests, so I really want this 3rd place game to be a breath of fresh air.

 

Most people in Belgium are looking forward to the game as they expect the team to DESTROY England.

 

At the time that the group-stage was wrapping-up, Colombia looked better than Japan and winning Group G meant you play Japan instead of Colombia. But the James injury and Spain getting surprised by Russia made the brackets appear even more imbalanced than they did initially.

 

A game of no hope, Just play and return home.

 

Belgium defeated England in the first round.

 

England didn't want to win that game... I'm not sure this will be anything other than a friendly type game and whether England will play it to win, England's goal in their first match wasn't to win, it was to come out with a 0-0 draw, or a loss so that they would finish second in the group and go down the "easier" path.

 

Nope, we're eagerly anticipating the Charity Shield game (on 5 August, I hear, thanks for the reminder Steve).
Both Southgate and Martinez have indicated their determination to win Saturday's game, suggesting the starting XIs will give them the best chance to win it. Most people in Belgium are hoping to see a lively game, preferably with lots of goals, win or lose.

That last bit, great to hear ... the other bit of Lawro's quote, not so much ... the arrogance of claiming you're only interested in winning the thing ... especially as England were beaten by Januzaj and again by the first decent side they faced in the KO phase, an overworked Croatia ... unwarranted arrogance ... as not once was I impressed by England's performance and it's laughable to call them heroes when they only won against lowly Panama, Tunisia (scraped through) and a mediocre Sweden.

Belgium were equally disappointed after losing in the semis. Yet it would be better to go home on a high note, winning 6 out of 7, and hopefully play in one final, entertaining game. Any other attitude would be shameful.

 

Golden Boot winner of WC 2018.
#harrykane

 

Okay, well, I've finally accepted that England isn't gonna bring it home. And I've remembered to keep my expectations low this time, looking it up at one of the football stats websites, looks like I'm right in keeping my expectations low.

 

Your entire assertion about the first game, that you've been going on about for weeks now, is based on what you believe Southgate's plan was. As if you can read his mind. All you can argue is about his 'body language' and how the game turned out, as if the play of the opposition had nothing to do with it. He says things that contradict your inference and you decide he's being 'disingenuous'. So I'm going to go with Hitchen's razor, "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". But please, write another long post about how badly England have played. I'm sure there is some new insight you can give us.

As for the Lawrenson quote, you're reaching again just to use the lazy cliche. Surely you have seen multiple finals, or Olympic sports, where athletes receive their loser's medal and immediately take it off? It was amusing to see the pictures of Hazard as a boy in 1998, wearing a France shirt because he wanted to win the whole thing. I think a better demonstration of arrogance is declaring yourself as judge and jury about what others should do, how they should play the game, as Courtois and Hazard chose to speak about France.

 

I don't dispute that some/many teams don't take the 3rd place match seriously, but I am certainly annoyed by it. Unless you are a clear favorite to win the title, and are simply too distraught for losing the chance to play in the final, proving where you rank in football against a side from a different bracket which had also made the semifinals should matter. And neither Belgium nor England were clear favorites to win the trophy, nor have enough pedigree, to pretend that finishing as the 3rd best team is meaningless to them.

Besides, in this instance, these teams already rested starters and played one another in the group stage in a manner that showed neither cared much for winning the game. Now its time to get a good and clear sense of how these two compare to one another. I certainly prefer Belgium over England, but if Belgium lose, even if it seemed like they didn't care, I wouldn't give any credence to that fact showing them anything other than finishing 4th behind England.

This is not a friendly game and besides deciding who finishes 3rd best in the tournament, I assume there will be significant points at stake for purposes of the FIFA rankings as well. More importantly, the World Cup takes place only once every 4 years and every team should try to come back home on a high note.