Watching how badly Germany played against Italy tonight has actually made me re-evaluate Englands performance a bit. Germany were barely any better than England, and were worse in the first half. They passed the ball better but should have lost 4 or 5 nill. This is meant to be the best German team of all time.
Germany showed England's performance against Italy was not as bad as people thought. Italy are a very difficult team to beat. Germany conceded 2, England 0.
Germany actually played to win. You guys were about as negative as I've ever seen; far worse than anything I've seen from my Italy bar the Euro Semi against Holland a few years back. Don't delude yourself.
Gotta disagree. The Germans were far more positive, possessed more, created some good chances and had several shots on goal. I'm here to eat my crow, though. I thought Germany would run right over Italy, and break their long history of futility against the Azzurri. I was very wrong. Credit to Italy for an excellent game plan and to Super Mario (who irks the shit out of me) for some fabulous individual play.
Germany were awful after 20 minutes in the first half. England didn't concede a goal and had chances as well. Germany conceded 2. Germany's second half offence was a lot better than England's but their defence had more holes than swiss cheese after a plague of mice. Germany could and should have have shipped 5.
Look, England was lucky not to lose by several goals. The Azzurri were far better and had several shots on target. I credit England for some true grit and heroic defending, but they are far from being the equal of a German side that--at many times--outplayed Italy. They were simply unfortunate that the Azzurri finally found the finishing touch. I'm glad you now give England more credit for their performance in these Euros. They deserve it. But Germany they are not.
The fact is they did not concede a goal. Germany were far worse than England in the first half, fact. The score also confirms this. Germany never really even looked like scoring in the entire game to be honest. England fans know this is not a vintage side at all. However this was meant to be Germany's most talented team of all time.
The English fan's delusion extends to both extremes. Yesterday they're pitiful, a blot on Britain's grand footballing history, today they're better than Germany. Italy lacked a finishing touch against England that they found against Germany. They were much much much more efficient in front of goal against Die Mannschaft. That was the difference. Balotelli was brilliant.
Germany made a game of it. We didn't. yes they were No they shouldn't have. No it's not a fact. Just as Ricky Gervais' David Brent character was used to point out, people who end sentences with "fact", and normally talking a load of crap. No it doesn't. according to whom? Pretend-to-be-English trolls like soccerballer14 wouldn't even stoop to nonsense like this.
Since when is shipping 2 goals in the first half making a game of it? Last time I checked not conceding is better, or are we playing basketball? Germany conceded 2, England conceded 0 that is a FACT. On planet earth that is considered better. Germany were attrocious in the first half, far worse than England's first half. 2/3 of Germans expected to win Euro 2012. This is seen as the most talented crop of young German players they have ever had. Try asking some actual Germans. Seriously the self loathing of some England fans is getting pathetic.
No. The fact is that Italy didn't finish their chances against England. They did against Germany. Ger v Italy was more closely contested than eng v. Ita.
I think I must have moved to mars. Suddenly, a team 2-0 down is a better performance than a team 0-0. Shall we take back Chelsea's Champions League trophy and give it to Bayern or Barcelona too? Italy had more clear cut chances against Germany than England. That's not even including the 2 goals they already scored. If you told Italians of the 1970s to 1990's that being 2-0 down was a better performance than 0-0 they would laugh in your face. Germany's defence was horrific.
If England were 2-0 down at half time against Italy and had played exactly how Germany had played.... Do tell me who on earth on the forums, press and media would be saying England were playing well? Please do tell me. Because we all know that's bullshit.
England didn't concede a single goal in 120 minutes, Germany conceded 2 in 90. I'm really tired of the "deserves" crew around these parts. Missed chances are nothing to celebrate. Nothing changes the fact that England had Italy closer to losing than Germany did. So yeah, England played better against Italy than Germany did. Bunkerball is a strategy, it doesn't make a team worse unless it leads to a bigger loss. It did not lead to a bigger loss for England. Numbers do not lie. So what if Germany attacked more? That means zilch unless they score. In football, you gotta have more brains than balls. England played smart, and they almost got the win. I was rooting for them so the "deserves" crew could get their panties in a bunch again.
There are people in this forum who need to stop watching football, and instead follow Horseshoes or grenade tossing. There, if you miss, you still get credit. Or Gridiron, where you can kick a "field goal" if you're not good enough to get in the end zone. Football is all or nothing. All or nothing.
Exactly. England were offensively crap in the second half and extra time. But Germany were far worse in their first half and couldn't defend for shit in the second. I don't want to hear about coulda should woulda. Fact is England were 3 pentalties from knocking them out with a clean sheet. Germany weren't even close to winning at any point. If this was an Italian team of old that RESULT would be seen as superior. Was it that much different to Chelsea? And they are Champions.
Here's an interesting question. Did England play worse against Italy than Chelsea did against Barcelona and Bayern? In my opinion, they didn't. So why do we expect more from an average England squad. Why are we more critical of England than Chelsea? What if England had won the shoot-out? Reason: Italy were vastly under estimated by everybody until they beat Germany.
It's considered a better result, but is not necessarily indicative of playing better. The whole game last night was a match where both teams competed and both teams had plenty of scoring chances, and both looked likely to score, with the ball going from end to end. The England v Italy game, the first 20 minutes aside, was almost entirely spent camped in the England half, with Italy having virtually all of the chances, and Italy looking the only team likely to score. No they weren't. Italy just finished better. They were more exposed on the break as they were chasing the game, whereas Italy's multitude of chances against us came when we had about 8 players back defending. How many Germans have you personally asked? We put out a weakened side, played poorly, and looked even worse because of our over-defensive tactics. Get over it and stop making ridiculous excuses.
Jesus, it's a moron tag-team. Having fun talking about how well England played against Italy, and the brilliant tactical decision to play for penalties when England almost always lose penalties. This line was perhaps my favourite from you two though. DPT is calling.
worst england performance i have seen, but you cannot say that to draw 0-0, after 90 and 120, is worse than losing 2-0 in 90.
You guys shouldn't be so hard on yourselves. I think, considering the circumstances coming into the tournament, England put on a good show and bowed out of the tournament undefeated.
No, you can't (not that Germany lost 2-0). Can you hand on heart say Germany turned in a worse performance than England? It's just a case of recognising that you can't judge a performance - how a team played - on the final result. We've all been to games where our teams have played well, but somehow lost, and played badly, and somehow won.
Are the England supporters seriously trying to argue that they were better in defeat than Germany? Okay, fine. Germany took two goals, whereas, you didn't concede. However, you were incredibly fortunate that Italy did not take their chances. They had 35 shots and over 60 percent possession FFS! That is admittedly atrocious. The 0-0 result was more a product of Italy's poor finishing in that match than anything else. England's defending was good, but you camped out in your own half after the 20th minute. I guess you can argue that your result against Italy was better. But you are not a better side than Germany.
Some of them are...and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to to their opinion. I just hope that the braintrust at the English FA think the same way. That way we never have to worry about England competing on the global stage again. They can take solace in playing poorly and squeaking through and blaming penalties for thier failure. It works for me. One less team to worry about truly contending.
Listen, I'm no big fan of England; I'm just being realistic. When my Italy went out to Spain in the Euros four years ago, I didn't take any solace in the fact that we lost to the eventual winners. In that match, Spain were clearly better and played to win. We were content to sit back and play on the counter. Although we had chances to win that game, I hated the way we played. We did not try to win. We played not to lose. There was no excuse for a side who had just won the World Cup two years prior, and still had talent, to play like that. From the outside looking in, it seems that the majority of England fans were happy by their performance and encouraged by their future. I don't get it. You can play negatively like that if you are Greece-but to take pride in the fact that you almost won a penalty shootout against a side now in the final is wrong. I'm not saying they're Brazil, but they have the talent to play better and not be satisfied with that type of result. They seem happy playing more negative football than the Italy sides that they've always criticized for "catenaccio."