England Discussion | Finish 4th

TheSwedeFromSweden said:
In the other positions, neither Sweden or England has anyone in the top-4. Except one of course, striker, where Kane is the highest ranked striker of all. I think these list in a good way of showing that Sweden actually have had better players than England in a lot of positions so far in the WC
Click to expand...

They're not, they simply reflect the fact that Sweden sit in and perform a lot of defensive actions for which they get points and then when they don't concede their scores get raised a little higher.

England's defence perform a completely different job and one that doesn't get marked as highly on whoscored.

Sweden are a great defensive unit though.
 
VP89 said:
Of course Delph is a good player. He hasn't put in a bad performance apart from this Belgium game you refer to (which I didn't actually watch so can't comment on).

Ali was contributing nothing. He was at 50%. Delph at 100% is better than Ali at 50%. This much is blatantly obvious. He's also a natural midfielder moreso than a full back.
Click to expand...

Has Delph put any performance except for the Belgium game?

But yeah you're right that Delph would be better in midfield than Alli if the latter is injured.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Has Delph put any performance except for the Belgium game?

But yeah you're right that Delph would be better in midfield than Alli if the latter is injured.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said in the original post you quoted.

And I said Delphs name after Loftus Cheek FWIW.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
They're not, they simply reflect the fact that Sweden sit in and perform a lot of defensive actions for which they get points and then when they don't concede their scores get raised a little higher.
Click to expand...

Aye I don't think you can compare Trippier and Lustig for example.
 
VP89 said:
Pretty much what I said in the original post you quoted.

And I said Delphs name after Loftus Cheek FWIW.
Click to expand...

Yeah I gotta admit I misread that post. I thought you had meant Delph on one leg was better than Alli!
 
Really looking forward to the game. If England wins, the potential embarrasment of seeing Marcus Berg and Ola Toivonen in a world cup final is averted. If Sweden wins, we'll have Chris Waddle's biennial rant. Can see this one going to penalties as well.
 
England’s main issue last night was not linking midfield/defence with attack effectively. For me, Loftus-Cheek needs to start in place of Alli as he’s been England’s best option at doing this so far, and Alli doesn’t seem fit enough.

Also, Emgland’s defence is poor - they need to score a couple against Sweden to ensure advancing.
 
Congratulations on being in the semi final! Columbia was a much harder opponent to play so you'll win this comfortably.
 
groovyalbert said:
England’s main issue last night was not linking midfield/defence with attack effectively. For me, Loftus-Cheek needs to start in place of Alli as he’s been England’s best option at doing this so far, and Alli doesn’t seem fit enough.

Also, Emgland’s defence is poor - they need to score a couple against Sweden to ensure advancing.
Click to expand...

How was the defence poor?

It seems to me like its just something people say because there are unfashionable names in there. England don't sit in and push up so there will always be vulnerabilities in that system. If you look at the goals against under Southgate's tenure, it isn't indicative of a poor defence, only two sides have scored more than one goal in a game against us France 3 and Scotland 2 (both free kicks) IIRC. The goals against column is not alarming.

Under Southgate England have played

France 2-3
Germany 0-0
Brazil 0-0
Holland 1-0
Italy 1-1

In prestige friendlies.
 
Camilo said:
Oh totally, and I'm glad England are through, but other than the fact Colombia were less sportsmanlike, it's hard to see where England deserve it. They were totally ineffective against a really poor Colombia side. Without the various penalties England have gotten (rightly - but not from what I'd call goal preventing fouls), they'd be out the world cup.

England are playing tidy football, but the chances aren't coming.
Click to expand...

I agree. We need to create more from open play.

I think we’re building really well from the back, transferring between areas smoothly, Henderson is doing ok in the middle, and have a brilliant striker, but we really need our “creative” attackers to step it up a level if we’re going to keep on progressing.

Even if only one of Sterling, Alli and Lingard played well, we’d have seen off both Tunisia and Colombia far more comfortably. They all wasted good opportunities to either trouble the keeper themselves or to put Kane in.

At the moment it feels like we’re doing lots of things well in possession of the ball, and are finding ourselves in some decent positions, but need one of those front three to produce a bit of magic.

Still, delighted that we’re dangerous from set plays, and that Kane has nerves of steel. They have the opportunity to improve again, and it’s been a journey with lots of positives :-)
 
Last edited:
FlawlessThaw said:
Has Delph put any performance except for the Belgium game?

But yeah you're right that Delph would be better in midfield than Alli if the latter is injured.
Click to expand...

Isn't Delph at home waiting for his kid to be born?
 
I think Ali hasn’t really offered anything..he should be dropped for sure as it’s like England are playing with 10 players at the moment.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
How was the defence poor?

It seems to me like its just something people say because there are unfashionable names in there. England don't sit in and push up so there will always be vulnerabilities in that system. If you look at the goals against under Southgate's tenure, it isn't indicative of a poor defence, only two sides have scored more than one goal in a game against us France 3 and Scotland 2 (both free kicks) IIRC. The goals against column is not alarming.

Under Southgate England have played

France 2-3
Germany 0-0
Brazil 0-0
Holland 1-0
Italy 1-1

In prestige friendlies.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. Aside from the goal and the 1st half of Extra Time (when we were rattled), the defence looked calm and assured the full game.
 
Dolf said:
Congratulations on being in the semi final! Columbia was a much harder opponent to play so you'll win this comfortably.
Click to expand...
They prevented Netherlands and Italy from qualifying, were unlucky to lose to Germany, beat a decent Mexico team comprehensively.

This Sweden team will not be pushovers, it is almost certain to be low scoring, they will look to sit back and frustrate us and nick a goal or see it all the way to penalties.

England need to find a way to create more from open play, I would drop Sterling who has done next to nothing all tournament and Alli who isn't fit, for Rashford and RLC. We may even need to switch to 4-3-3 to provide width and create an overlap to break down a water tight defence.

My only concern is that if England go 1 behind, it would be highly likely to remain that way. Nonetheless, couldn't ask for a more favourable opponent in a World Cup Quarter Final.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
How was the defence poor?

It seems to me like its just something people say because there are unfashionable names in there. England don't sit in and push up so there will always be vulnerabilities in that system. If you look at the goals against under Southgate's tenure, it isn't indicative of a poor defence, only two sides have scored more than one goal in a game against us France 3 and Scotland 2 (both free kicks) IIRC. The goals against column is not alarming.

Under Southgate England have played

France 2-3
Germany 0-0
Brazil 0-0
Holland 1-0
Italy 1-1

In prestige friendlies.
Click to expand...

Maybe poor is the wrong word but I think the defence is a weak link for England. Offensively, the defensive unit offers a fair amount, but I think it’s leaky.

This World Cup supports my claim. They’re the only team left in the competition not to have kept a clean sheet. This isn’t necessarily a huge thing in and of itself, but considering they’ve played Panama and Tunisia, you’d expect them to have notched one up somewhere.

If they’ve not kept a clean sheet up until this stage, I don’t think there’s a reason to expect they will in the latter stages. Hence my claim they need to score a couple into ensure victory.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
How was the defence poor?

It seems to me like its just something people say because there are unfashionable names in there. England don't sit in and push up so there will always be vulnerabilities in that system. If you look at the goals against under Southgate's tenure, it isn't indicative of a poor defence, only two sides have scored more than one goal in a game against us France 3 and Scotland 2 (both free kicks) IIRC. The goals against column is not alarming.

Under Southgate England have played

France 2-3
Germany 0-0
Brazil 0-0
Holland 1-0
Italy 1-1

In prestige friendlies.
Click to expand...

It looks like the sort that will be solid for most of the match and then give away a key chance from minimal pressure as we saw with Cuadrado miss.

England haven't actually kept a clean sheet yet at this WC which is a surprise as even in poor tournaments like 2010 and 14 they kept one.

It's hardly Greece/Portugal wall level.
 
FootballHQ said:
It looks like the sort that will be solid for most of the match and then give away a key chance from minimal pressure as we saw with Cuadrado miss.

England haven't actually kept a clean sheet yet at this WC which is a surprise as even in poor tournaments like 2010 and 14 they kept one.

It's hardly Greece/Portugal wall level.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was, just that poor is an exaggeration, quite a big one. The system we play will always have its shaky moments in defence. Its a bout a balance. If we sat in every game and were conceding one or two a game then I would be a bit concerned.
 
Rafaeldagold said:
I think Ali hasn’t really offered anything..he should be dropped for sure as it’s like England are playing with 10 players at the moment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I would drop him for Loftus Cheek personally. I'd give Sterling another shout though. I don't think we can rely on set pieces against the Swedes. Will need some players that can carry the ball past players.
 
FootballHQ said:
It looks like the sort that will be solid for most of the match and then give away a key chance from minimal pressure as we saw with Cuadrado miss.

England haven't actually kept a clean sheet yet at this WC which is a surprise as even in poor tournaments like 2010 and 14 they kept one.

It's hardly Greece/Portugal wall level.
Click to expand...

The lack of clean sheets (even against pub team-level players like Panama) is definitely a concern, as is the lack of chances we seem to be creating at the other end (combined with an impressive ability, Kane aside, to miss them).
 
For all the talk and analysis though, we won’t play a genuinely good team unless we make the final (Croatia would be an even game I’ll admit). Last night we got away with things that weren’t tactically great because of the opposition.

Sometimes things just fall into place. To play Tunisia, Panama, Columbia and Sweden to make a World Cup semi final is as good as we’ll ever get.
 
Given Sweden's defensive strengths you are not going to just push them off the ball so I would keep sterling as his pace and runs will create space for others. Lingard should thrive in this game as he could operate between the lines of Sweden's defence and midfield very profitably. He just needs to be freed to do so by having either a fully fit Dele alli (which he clearly was not last night) or someone with some passing range and good touch to link play.

I'd be tempted to put Rashford in for Alli rather than loftus cheek, with the proviso that Lingard stays a little deeper for the transition. I hope we continue to try and play expansively rather than match them in a 442 or add Dier to work alongside Henderson in Midfield as that will just kill off any creativity.

I think England's fate hangs on disciplinaries and injuries as we have very few alternatives in a few key positions. Will need a lot of luck on our side and battering through the wall of Sweden will be tough but achievable, The question will be at what cost for any future progression.
 
99withaflake said:
I agree. We need to create more from open play.

I think we’re building really well from the back, transferring between areas smoothly, Henderson is doing ok in the middle, and have a brilliant striker, but we really need our “creative” attackers to step it up a level if we’re going to keep on progressing.

Even if only one of Sterling, Alli and Lingard played well, we’d have seen off both Tunisia and Colombia far more comfortably. They all wasted good opportunities to either trouble the keeper themselves or to put Kane in.

At the moment it feels like we’re doing lots of things well in possession of the ball, and are finding ourselves in some decent positions, but need one of those front three to produce a bit of magic.

Still, delighted that we’re dangerous from set plays, and that Kane has nerves of steel. They have the opportunity to improve again, and it’s been a journey with lots of positives :-)
Click to expand...

This is delusion none of delli Alli lingard or sterling are creative. They all rely on more creative players to create chances for them. Their best attributes are creating space for creativity and getting on the end of things.

This is why England can’t create. They do not have a player like that in the entire squad
 
England's defence isn't poor. They look solid (the unit) but just happen to suddenly concede a goal from very little danger they let. Bit like Belgium. Raised this issue after Panama and Tunisia games. Yesterday they looked rock solid before the last few minutes when suddenly they let 3 dangerous headers. From crosses, of all things for an English team. Same against Tunisia and Panama.
 
Dele Ali needs to be taken out before Sterling imo. He seems to have spent this tournament being injured and then left on for 40 more minutes than he should've been. Would put RLC in for him.

Great player for Spurs but struggles to get going for England.
 
99withaflake said:
I agree. We need to create more from open play.

I think we’re building really well from the back, transferring between areas smoothly, Henderson is doing ok in the middle, and have a brilliant striker, but we really need our “creative” attackers to step it up a level if we’re going to keep on progressing.

Even if only one of Sterling, Alli and Lingard played well, we’d have seen off both Tunisia and Colombia far more comfortably. They all wasted good opportunities to either trouble the keeper themselves or to put Kane in.

At the moment it feels like we’re doing lots of things well in possession of the ball, and are finding ourselves in some decent positions, but need one of those front three to produce a bit of magic.

Still, delighted that we’re dangerous from set plays, and that Kane has nerves of steel. They have the opportunity to improve again, and it’s been a journey with lots of positives :-)
Click to expand...

I feel our issue here is we have one true CM in Henderson and need another more disciplined player, even if someone like Delph to help build attacks and sit a bit deeper - Alli (when fit) is great at late runs into the box, cute passes but he kept finding himself on the LW last night and he's not a player who is going to take people on at this level. Lingard has been given this roaming role, which I like, but because of that he's covering so much distance when defending (I'd love to see his running stats from yesterday) and it leaves Henderson a bit isolated. Sterling has just not been great, full of running and maybe has been a bit unlucky but I do think he is the one who should be dropped now - enough chances to impress and there's no harm in starting Rashford or Vardy over him IMO.
 
TMDaines said:
Vardy has had the same problem in a number of recent England appearances now, where he basically is not involved with the ball. It's not the first time his low number of touches has been noted. It will be analysis that work out whether he or his teammates are more culpable for that.
Click to expand...
I think it was lack of creativity because I saw him on the move constantly. It just coincided with your creative players carrying knocks I think and getting used to new formation. Only Lingard was visibly trying to link up with him as Kane was asked to drop deeper.
 
Judas said:
We simply don't have a creative force in midfield. Lots of second strikers, but no one to really make chances.
Click to expand...

Yea England has no midfield really. This world cup has been high on drama but low on quality compared to past world cups, only Uruguay and Brazil have looked like they know what their doing. The fact a poor team like England can maybe get to the final says it all.
 
Really excited about the QF against England. Sweden has surprised me, and I think they played good vs Switzerland, kept the ball a bit better and Forsberg was really good. Grankvist a rock in the defence as always. With a Henrik Larsson instead of Berg it would had been 3-0 :).
Also nice to England for once doing well in a tournament. Have had a soft spot for England since Svennis. This is a tournament of shocks, so not that surprising that England won a penalty shootout! Good penalties as well, and you guys deserved it.

As for the game, can't see it being anything other than a low scoring one. Just hoping that Sweden can keep it tight and nick a goal from a set piece or a counter attack, though England is also quite strong at defending set pieces, and not easy to outrun Kyle Walker during a counter attack.

Experts on Swedish television mentioned that Sweden historically have a strong record against England. They seemed to prefer to face England rather than Colombia, though they were under no illusions about Sweden being underdogs and needing to play really well to get a result.
 
Case for Rashford in this game? I think there is.
 
Think a big problem that needs addressing for the QF is how you can't really say any of Sterling, Alli or Lingard have played well so far. They've all had the odd moment of quality, but none have had a good, full game.

If Alli isn't fully fit, which he doesn't appear to be, he'd be my first choice to get dropped.

If Alli is fully fit, I'd be dropping Sterling. He's not offering a great deal defensively, which is an area that Alli and Lingard are contributing more in, and he's been incredibly wasteful with the ball so far, running into blind alleys when he should be looking for a pass, or fluffing chances.

Loftus-Cheek to step in most likely, with Rashford being kept back as an impact sub.
 
I could handle RLC over Alli, but would prefer Alli to be fit and us to adjust the shape a bit to play Lingard---Kane---Sterling as a three with Lingard and Sterling wide, and Henderson and Alli (or Dier if not fit) behind them. Sterling is basically out of position up with Kane. The current system suits Lingard, but not the others; I think we could get more out of Sterling and Alli with a little adjustment. And there is a case for Rashford for Lingard, then, as he might do better attacking from the left.
 
Judas said:
Dier should be nowhere near the team based on his performances so far, he's been dreadful. When he came on he was a total mess.
Click to expand...

He hasn't done well, agreed, but he hasn't become a poor player overnight. If we did change the shape to have more of a 2 in midfield, Henderson's partner will need some defensive discipline - not sure RLC is up to it. I guess Delph is the other option. He's certainly a better passer than Dier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.