Anyway back to the game. England dominated and deserved our win. Not really sure what Sweden were doing there as they were nowhere near our level. Terrible side
I´m not that neutral since England always been my second team after Sweden. However,two cents anyways. The things that has hurt Englands reputation more than anything else is the former hooligan problems.It hurt the country really bad especially in the 80´s and 90´s in a way that most people wanted England to lose because of them. Since England took care of that problem there has indeed been highprofile players that has been very hard to like.Even I,as a plastic England fan,enjoyed watching players like Cashley Cole or Wayne Rooney fail. It has also almost become a tradition to see England fail in WC.There has been times in the past when big words and an unattractive attitude has been present. It has all changed IMO.The England side 2018 is easy to like.I don´t think anyone has a bad word to say regarding Gareth Southgate or any of the players in the squad.I don´t think it would have been like this if Big Fat Sam would have been manager for instance. The fans of England and the british press has been the countrys worst enemy in the past IMO.Nowadays there are worse people outthere than an english football fan and the press seems to have toned down their language a bit as well.Expectations nowadays regarding the England national team is on the contrary understated...perhaps the loss to Iceland 2016 was the straw that broke the camels back and enabled England to build a proper side consisting of proper people. I think England has been really strong since the Iceland debacle,and I wouldn´t be surprised if they become world champions yet again. IF that will mean a return to past mistakes..well,time will tell. COME ON ENGLAND!
I wouldnt say terrible its just we were the first team that could handle their direct approach. Our defenders deal with long balls and crosses every week in the epl. Its just when we countered on them, their centrebacks couldnt cope with the movement of our attackers.
Strictly about me now: Before it began I wanted Enlgand to lose. But due the fans England are the Liverpool of NT for me. Funny when they suck, very obnoxious when they are winning. So far so good please don't turn into Liverpool 2018 I prefer Belgium to win it all now but if either teams does it... it's the same
It's far from "embarrassing" to beat teams like Sweden, I'm very happy about it, but "one of the worst NTs in the world" is a stretch. The lowest England have ever been is 27, and that was back in the horrible, Graham Taylor days. Around the same time, Spain fell down to 25th, just to put it in perspective. But yeah, the OP needs to wind his neck in a little bit.
No, recently we've been very decent second level national team but one who's under-performed drastically n big tournaments. We've won our qualification groups in ALL of the past 5 world cups and if you look at who we've beaten into 2nd and 3rd place over that period it's been Italy, Germany, Poland, Ukraine AND Croatia and Ukraine (again). So WORST national team??? Hardly! What we've done recently is fallen apart when we got there... y'know, the same as Germany, Argentina and several other sides have done this time. We were just ahead of the curve
I'm not totally unbiased as you can see my the team I support. But this squad is different. I would say it is largely due to age more than personality. Pickford, Stones, Maguire, Lingard, Kane, Dele, Deir, Loftus-Cheek, Rashford, and Sterling are all 25 and under. Of the players you mentioned, only Gerrard was generally likable in a broader sense, unlike many of the current crop, but even then, he was hated. I think of it in the context of comparing captains. From 2006 to 20017 the England captain was mostly Terry, Gerrard, Rooney, and Ferdinand. Compare that group to today's captain - Kane - and the very different, understated personally, and that should tell you a lot about the difference in this team versus the one in 2014 or 2010. Here is what a lot of people seem to miss about top level players. They all are arrogant and have huge egos - they would not be at this level if they did not have that. The difference is that, by comparison, this group is not cocky and full of players who play with a sense of divine right. Yes, this current squad has asses - Walker, Dele, Cahill, and to a lesser degree Henderson and Stones - but none of them seem to see their place on the England squad as one being granted by God they way Lampard, or Rooney seemed to. Additionally, Southgate also seems to make a difference in likability. He looks younger, looks like he is having fun, dresses dapper, and compared to all the other England managers since 2000, looks like he enjoys life and is not sour.
I think he meant to say one of the worst in World and Euro competitions, which is true. They've been good in qualifiers of course.
I think that when a team has a bad spell, like England have since Italia 90, they can get that kind of reputation. When I was growing up in the 80s & 90s, the European team with the reputation of choking and underperforming at tournaments was Spain. 2010 got rid of that. Hopefully, this year can help England get rid of that reputation too.
Looks at one English poster and assumes everyone else (wanting to because of probable pre-bitterness) thinks the same way.
Some people would call that bigotry, wouldn't they...a desperate desire to believe ill of a group based on the experience of a very small sample based on nationality, race, creed, or colour. I mean, I wouldn't say that because I'm a very well informed person, accustomed to allowing facts to dictate my thinking and not relying on tired old stereotypes... I'm just saying some people might say that
He gets too much criticism. Much to your point, he's being asked to play a different role. From a neutral point of view, I see a guy who works his butt off and creates loads of space. I've seen him hustle back to slow attacks down. He also comes back to midfield often to make himself available for link up. He is often on either wing supporting the attack, This guy is all over the pitch. Sure he's in a slump scoring wise, but I'm positive Southgate is delighted with everything else he does.
He'd like him to start scoring, obviously... but he IS contributing to the team. Something I DID notice is that he seemed to contribute more when Sweden started to have to come out and attack us as they were behind. Going forward that might be more important and the fact the coach has kept faith with him could be important.
From the beginning of World Cup, Sweden played very slow game. Luckily they qualify for the quarterfinal. Their playing style also so boring. Thanks team England to defeat them.
England fans have invaded IKEA 🇸🇪 😂😂 https://t.co/bD9wBroqbS— Premier League Stuff (@EPLStuff) July 7, 2018 Good thing that there aren't any Croatian businesses in England. But tourist destinations where the English flock to are a different matter.
Sweden beat France, Netherlands and Italy in qualifying for this World Cup. England lost to Iceland, a side similar in style to Sweden, at the last Euros at the same exact stage of this tournament. Both Kane, Alli and Sterling played in that loss. That's essentially England's current offense. I think England's error against Iceland at the Euros was partly owing to the fact Iceland were probably seen by the English players as being rubbish too. And the only reason Sweden under-performed against England this time around was because key players like Forsberg didn't have the stamina to carry on. He wasn't subbed out because he was injured or because Sweden had a better option on the bench, it was because he was tired. Sterling has made over 40 appearances with England, but has only scored 2 goals in matches against rather modest opposition. Kane has scored 6 for England at this World Cup alone. If I had to take an educated guess, it would be that England need to get the ball to Kane in order to score. On the evidence so far in this tournament, Kane has only really been used to effect on set-pieces. England haven't really given him any real service up front. I happen to think Croatia have a CB pairing that might prove their undoing and given Subasic's injury scare, I think England getting crosses into the box will prove a challenge for Croatia. Should England play France or Belgium in the final, Kane will have a harder time and will need a lot more quality from his teammates to provide him with service. I think there's no mistaking that for England to win the World Cup, they'll need Kane to deliver in spades and TBH I think his teammates aren't up to the task in getting the most out of Kane.
I've seen you make this argument a couple of times now. What are you basing it on? None of the Swedes look unusually tired that I could see. If a team was tired, it should have been England, who had to play the extra time match against Colombia. Moreover, fitness and stamina are generally considered a strong point for Sweden. Sweden looked anemic on attack because they always look anemic on attack, whether it's the first minute or the 90th. Their problem is a lack of technique and pace, not a lack of stamina.
It may be a strong point for Sweden over one or two games for short periods, but to have the stamina to play five games in a short period of time after a long hard season of club football, when most players are used to resting and vacationing, is very hard. Sweden had players who were really struggling to carry on by the 5th game. The best example was Forsberg, the player who won the game for Sweden against Switzerland and arguably Sweden's best attacking player. He was tired. He was subbed out at a time when Sweden needed their best players to deliver most. Then there are players like Berg. He was Sweden's biggest goal threat going into the tournament. Yet he didn't score a single goal at the World Cup proper. This is because he is no longer used to the rigors of high level football anymore. He competes in the UAE. Sweden lacked potency upfront for this exact reason. Berg was very standstill and didn't harass defenders. He played like a lamppost. Again, this was due to a lack of stamina. Those familiar with Berg knows he's very quick footed and roams in and out of pockets. Sweden played a full strength team in all their games. England did not. In the match against Belgium, England rested numerous players. This is why Sweden put up less resistance than they did against England, who were a lot younger and still better rested despite the extra-time against Colombia. It's why Sweden looked sloppy at times. Germany, France, Netherlands and Italy all played a tougher Sweden because in those matches they had fresher legs, despite a lack of technique and pace.
That's incredibly selective view: England are in the same boat in that their players have just finished a long season and in fact I would guess with CL involvement, multiple cups, I would warrant key English players played more games than their Swedish counterparts. For example Fosberg played 27 games last season, whereas Harry Kane played 48 games.
I don't know where you get that, I really don't. As someone who has seen every Sweden match since about 2008, I didn't sense that Sweden looked particularly tired, or any more tired than England. They were just inept, as usual, in their efforts to play attacking football. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Well then why was Forsberg, Europe's top performing assist maker in 16/17, subbed out against England when his team was losing and needed him most?