SF: July 11 Croatia vs England [R]

We were found out in the end, it's a shame we didn't score more in the first half when we were on top but once Croatia got hold of the midfield second half, the set pieces dried up and we had hardly any creativity. Set pieces are what carried us through the tournament and for all the talk about Southgate's passing style we seemed to spend most of last night passing all the way back to the keeper. At least Spain are good enough to keep the ball at the half way line when they play as if possesion is all that matters.

 

Slavic team in the final in a Slavic country... it’s not luck

1998 will be repaid in full...

Slav. ... Slavic languages belong to the Indo-European family. Customarily, Slavs are subdivided into East Slavs (chiefly Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians), West Slavs (chiefly Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, and Wends, or Sorbs), and South Slavs(chiefly Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins).

Wikipedia

 

I like Croatia, they produce a staggering amount of technically gifted players for a small country

Perisic is a danger, manzukic is a selfless mobile target man, Rakitic and Modric are elite technical players and their defence is solid in front of a great keeper

I think France May edge it but Croatia will not be easy

 

They’re the new Spain lol. Their inclusion in Madrid and Barcelona’s midfield is high praise for Croatian technical soccer training

 

Dismissing a final match contender from the get-go.

People don't learn, do they?

 

It's ridiculous people with tunnel vision. I can't count how many times a "lesser" team has managed to stifle the stronger team on both club and in international matches. Croatia will need a good plan, but by no means will this be a cake walk like people think it is, it's never that simple.

 

England will never get a chance like this again for many years.

Croatia were very lucky in the first half, a better team would have put them to the sword. England went out like a steam train. First with the goal, and an attacking style of play that had Raheem Sterling causing the Croatian back two a great deal of problems (but he didn’t score so expect a racist tirade in the Daily Mail). They created plenty of chances from open play for the first time in the tournament. Kane should have scored and so should have Lingard. All chances a better team would have put away. Kane worked hard all night but feel out of the game. He was too deep to do what he excels at - scoring. The defence was also weak. The English liked to talk down Lovren but he didn’t ******** up the way Stones and Walker did, for both goals. One for letting a player run in front of two of them and across them. Secondly for just switching off and not watching the play develop, while a guy who could hardly walk was more alert then them.

After that Croatia were the dominate force. Having nearly all the possession. It was an onslaught. Attacking, creating chances in the middle with their world class midfield and down the wing with Vrsaljko’s quality on the wing. To have just got back from a knee problem he was increadibly eager to get up the pitch. Guy has also played 120 minutes three times now, an absolute animal. Perišić did a fantastic job in the second half, amazing movement across the defenders for the first goal. Also good for the chance that hit the post.

As for Southgate, he let a team that was dominating fall away. They made silly mistakes, and he played a formation that let Croatia’s midfielders have acres of space.

 

I don't think it was a flattering result for England, because the fact is that many of the teams they played didn't play well enough to beat them.

Also their game against Belgium was not really an important game so I wouldn't say that would be a good assessment of them.

They deservedly lost and may not get another chance like this again but I think they will be harder to beat than they were in the past and won't make mistakes like losing to Iceland or getting group stage exits. If they can get one creative midfielder they can go far in tournaments consistently.

 

Not just on this section of the forum, I got banned from the Real Madrid section just for being English and saying that trippier’s set pieces are like Beckham’s. The anti English bias is evident to see.

 

England beat the teams it defeated deservedly. I agree. But it didn't beat anyone that rates highly. Even if you don't want to count the Belgium game, Croatia was the first real test for England and they blew it.

There are 3 different issues.
1-Did England do better than in the last 2 major tournaments it participated in? Clearly, yes. This time around, at least they didn't drop the ball against teams which were rated below them.
2-Did England prove it belongs among the 4 best teams in the world? No. The only seriously worthy opponent (Croatia) they faced (besides the Belgium game which didn't matter and which they lost) ended up beating them and even that opponent isn't necessarily one of the top 4 teams in the world.
3- Did England blow away a golden opportunity given to it on a sliver platter? For sure. They may never have such an easy path to the final again. And they can't expect everything to line up for them so well as it did in the 1st half against Croatia: an early lead, a tired opponent, and several good chances to put the game away.

Honestly, while the lows England had recently experienced serves to cushion this blow, they blew it badly. This was their chance to remake their image and write a new chapter in their history. They failed to do so.

 

Agree with everything except that Croatia is not a top four team. They have proved clearly that they are - I would say France, Belgium, Croatia and Uruguay were the best four sides of the tournament.

 

I don't agree about Uruguay at all. The 2nd game at the World Cup is an important match. Uruguay, after making a meal of beating Egypt in the final minutes of their opening game, were even all that dominant against Saudi Arabia. They won that game 1:0. To be sure, they beat Portugal deservedly, but even against Portugal it was a case of Uruguay doing well with its chances given the undeniable talent they have in Cavani and Suarez. They certainly missed Cavani against France, but it also showed how they aren't that good when trailing France, they looked hopeless and had basically given up. To me, Uruguay is more around top 8 -- around where they finished in this tournament.

With respect to Croatia, I think a case can easily be made to put them among the top 4. But they would still not be a top 4 side that I would rate as highly as any of France, Brazil or Belgium.

 

Yeah I never understood the abject hatred England fans still have to this day for Maradona; yes he cheated on a goal but what was he supposed to do, admit to the ref he scored with his hand? There’s no footballer in history who would ask for a goal to be rescinded. If you want to blame someone, blame the refs - they screwed it up.

Also the second goal in that game more than made up for the illegal first.

 

Come on, you don't see the vitriol against England, here and in the Colombia game thread? People that just show up to celebrate us finally going out? New accounts that last a day before getting red carded?

You've been around all tournament, I know we have very different views, but I'll respect your founded criticism of England. Too many others are just here to troll.

 

Uruguay set themselves up to be a team tough to beat, not necessarily playing the most attractive football. They achieved that and I feel with Cavani, especially after coming off that great match to Portugal, it could well be a different outcome with France. Also, I think you forget it took an out of this world save by Lloris to keep them in the lead, and a terrible error by Muslera to seal the match. Brazil on the other hand struggled throughout, could not beat Switzerland and only won against Costa Rica in stoppage time. While Mexico had Marquez commanding their midfield, the game was a stalemate with Mexico having had the better chances, unfortunately for them there is no true replacement for their veteran legend.

 

I am not saying Uruguay aren't a good side. They are certainly a tough side to beat with sting upfront. But a side that would rate truly top 4 would need to be better, not just when the game is even or they have the lead, but when they are trailing too. My hunch is Uruguay aren't all that adept at mounting a comeback as they don't have the kind of pressing attributes needed.

Now, to be sure, I think the same about Croatia but they actually came back from behind in 2 back-to-back games against Russia and England. But my sense is that even Croatia aren't at their best when trailing, something that showed until their equalizer against England. Now, if Uruguay had tied it up against France somehow, I could see them even beating them. But the same way Croatia's equalizer was a bit against the run of play earlier, it would ordinarily require Uruguay to find an equalizer like that as well. The Lloris save you mention denied them that kind of chance.

 

Let's get some things straight.

England are an average team that only got to the semi's because of the draw. This is correct. They had an easy game against an under-par Sweden and Panama..but they were far from convincing against either Colombia or Tunisia. That being said, they still beat those teams...and deserve some credit as a team that is realistically on the same level as Colombia and Sweden (2 other average teams on a world scale).

Croatia have better players than England. This is true. Croatia have arguably the best midfielder in the world in Modric.......and Ractic and Perisic are better than anything that England can currently field in those positions. England have 1 player who has any potential of world class, and that's Harry Kane who went missing in the knockout stages. Even though there is a gap in quality, England were the better team in the first half and it would not have been unfair to go in the half 2-0. They deservedly lost over the 120 minutes.

As much as Croatia can be seen as a better team than England, I think France, Belgium, Brazil and Uruguay all showed enough to be classed as better than Croatia in the knockouts. They just all so happened to meet each other....so as much as people want to speak of England's easy path...Croatia's has been much easier. They have had to go to 120 minutes against Denmark, Russia and England to reach a WC final. never has there been an easier task and they struggled (especially against Denmark).

If both teams in the final play to their potential..it will be an easy win for France. But if France have an off day...Croatia will have a chance.

 

I am curious, what does the rule allow about this kind play ? I know that Panama also tried this against England in this WC.

 

You need to look at the human aspect. It's the final minutes of a WC semi final. The losing team is desperate to at least have a chance of getting back in the game. It's like when a winning team in the final moments showboats, fakes injury, celebrates too long, hold the ball in the corner...you get desperate reactions (over reactions) in huge games, in desperation. These things infuriate players and it should be understandable.

 

What makes it more bizarre is they probably would've had to review the play on VAR because it was offside right on the first pass.

But to be fair, they didn't shoot. Perhaps they knew it would've led to just waste more precious minutes...