England Discussion | Finish 4th

El Zoido said:
Yep, Sweden have conceded two goals so far in the tournament, while England have struggled to create anything from open play. England has also conceded a goal in every game so far. It doesn’t bode well, but maybe if we can grab an early goal it’ll open the game up. I think Southgate needs to switch things up, start with Rashford and RLC and raise the tempo.
Click to expand...
Completely agree, our best chance would be to score early, the longer it goes on the more it suits Sweden imo. And completely agree, those are the exact changes I would make but I am very very sceptical that he will drop Sterling - he has a free pass in the team regardless of performance.

I'm not holding my breath.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Don't get how it's a 50/50, let alone Sweden favourites. Sometimes I feel like people go too far the other way in order not to seem like they overrate England.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I find it difficult to be objective about England. I'm waiting for our usual big tournament disappointment.
 
Fridge chutney said:
To be fair, I find it difficult to be objective about England. I'm waiting for our usual big tournament disappointment.
Click to expand...

I see it as 50/50. We might have better players man for man but Sweden play to cancel teams out and we do struggle with creativity from open play. As such it likely becomes a very tight game decided on fine margins, very possibly penalties.

I think people often fail to appreciate the other factors that influence a game beyond how good a side is on paper.
 
How many goals have England scored from open play? I didn't watch all the games but it seems the majority of their goals is from set pieces right?

But I think they should win this against Sweden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Sweden are firm favourites what with their style of play and England's struggles to score from open play, I'm sure they know that. So the narrative of them being the underdogs is laughable.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Henderson would be worst, by far. We have a dearth of quality in that area, it's a serious problem. I don't even rate him particularly highly, but the only real replacement for him would be Dier, who is a solid utility player but has not had a good season and nobody is really sure what his best position is.

Walker however, I really wouldn't be worried about. I actually think Southgate is making a colossal mistake continuing with him at CB. I understand the logic (He can bring the ball out, and the fact he's rapid means he's able to cover the often ponderous Maguire) but he's simply not a CB, not even in a three.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on hoping Henderson stays injury and suspension-free. Also Dier has been off the pace in his England appearances recently.

However, other than the incredibly harsh penalty awarded against him, I think Walker has been our most consistent performer at CB so far. Stones has been his usual self in gifting the opposition the ball in a superb position pretty much at least once per game, while Maguire has been caught out with runs in behind in every game so far, and lost Mina for Colombia's goal. Walker's excellent pace is actually the reason why I'd be most worried about losing him as opposed to our other CBs - he's the only one of our defenders I'd fancy coming out on top with say Hazard or Neymar up against them in the final, while either of them, or Mbappe, running against Maguire, Stones or Cahill would have us crapping bricks.
 
Judas said:
I think Sweden are firm favourites what with their style of play and England's struggles to score from open play, I'm sure they know that. So the narrative of them being the underdogs is laughable.
Click to expand...
At least german bookies would heavily disagree. They make England favourites by quite a bit.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I see it as 50/50. We might have better players man for man but Sweden play to cancel teams out and we do struggle with creativity from open play. As such it likely becomes a very tight game decided on fine margins, very possibly penalties.

I think people often fail to appreciate the other factors that influence a game beyond how good a side is on paper.
Click to expand...


It will be a tight game, nobody is suggesting it will be a walkover for England. However, in tight games it is most often the team who possess players more capable of moments of individual class that win. England undoubtedly have more players that can do this, and in games of few chances the fact we have an absurdly clinical striker will, in my opinion, be decisive. Sweden are excellent at cancelling teams out but they lack quality in the final third, with the exception of the Mexico game.

Of course other factors than individual quality come in to play, but I'd say the advantage is still with England. Even if it goes to penalties they are still slightly favourites, possessing more clinical players and having already experienced a shootout victory. If it goes down to fine margins I fancy the England players more to come up with the goods, Kane is our greatest asset by far and Sweden have absolutely nobody like him.
 
Saying Sweden was outplayed against Switzerland :lol: Did they even have one good opportunity? Sweden missed lots, especially in the first half. Not everything is about holding the ball in some slow tiki taka way.
 
Judas said:
I think Sweden are firm favourites what with their style of play and England's struggles to score from open play, I'm sure they know that. So the narrative of them being the underdogs is laughable.
Click to expand...

Oh come on.. We have one player that would get into the England squad.. not starting 11, squad. No team in the history of football have been favorites going in to a game when that has been the case.
 
Judas said:
I think Sweden are firm favourites what with their style of play and England's struggles to score from open play, I'm sure they know that. So the narrative of them being the underdogs is laughable.
Click to expand...
In what world are Sweden favourites?
 
How can people not watch Sweden and think England are going to have an absolute nightmare against them? Maybe it's because I'm English, cynical, negative, but I'm so used to England, but its all setup for misery as far as I can see.



It's still coming home though. Obviously.
 
Fredrik.A said:
Saying Sweden was outplayed against Switzerland :lol: Did they even have one good opportunity? Sweden missed lots, especially in the first half. Not everything is about holding the ball in some slow tiki taka way.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I saw Shaqiri whining after the game and saying that Sweden won because we were lucky. We could and should have scored at least 3 goals while they had one good scoring chance all game.. How the feck is that luck?
 
Zlaatan said:
Oh come on.. We have one player that would get into the England squad.. not starting 11, squad. No team in the history of football have been favorites going in to a game when that has been the case.
Click to expand...

You’re underselling yourselves, it’s really hard to call. Sweden have looked the better side in this tournament, Panama are such a poor side we can take nothing from it. It could go either way but the teams are equal, Sweden are by no means the underdog in this game.
 
El Zoido said:
You’re underselling yourselves, it’s really hard to call. Sweden have looked the better side in this tournament, Panama are such a poor side we can take nothing from it. It could go either way but the teams are equal, Sweden are by no means the underdog in this game.
Click to expand...

I think it will be a very close game as well and England haven't impressed me all that much during the tournament, but I just think it's a bit absurd to say that "calling Sweden the underdogs is laughable". I've checked two betting sites and Sweden will give you between 4-5 to 1 while England gives you 2 to 1, so according to them at least it's not really a 50-50 game and it shouldn't really be if you look at this objectively and compare the quality of the two squads.

For instance, if you could make the teams swap sides for this game, and have the Swedish team play for England and vice versa, would you do that?
 
Zlaatan said:
I think it will be a very close game as well and England haven't impressed me all that much during the tournament, but I just think it's a bit absurd to say that "calling Sweden the underdogs is laughable". I've checked two betting sites and Sweden will give you between 4-5 to 1 while England gives you 2 to 1, so according to them at least it's not really a 50-50 game and it shouldn't really be if you look at this objectively and compare the quality of the two squads.

For instance, if you could make the teams swap sides for this game, and have the Swedish team play for England and vice versa, would you do that?
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it might be a bit much to define Sweden as the clear favourites, but I think it is closer than the bookies have priced it and perhaps an objective bettor would see this as a potential arbitrage opportunity.
 
Zlaatan said:
I think it will be a very close game as well and England haven't impressed me all that much during the tournament, but I just think it's a bit absurd to say that "calling Sweden the underdogs is laughable". I've checked two betting sites and Sweden will give you between 4-5 to 1 while England gives you 2 to 1, so according to them at least it's not really a 50-50 game and it shouldn't really be if you look at this objectively and compare the quality of the two squads.

For instance, if you could make the teams swap sides for this game, and have the Swedish team play for England and vice versa, would you do that?
Click to expand...

Serious? I'm going to put £100 on Sweden to take the sting out of any loss.
 
Is it true that on his bottle of water, Pickford had written on what side the Colombian players will shoot? Quite diligent at doing the homework.
 
Personally, I fail to see what Sterling offers up front that couldn't be provided by Rashford or Vardy. Sterling needs 4 clear cut chances to score and so far i've seen him miss two almost, open goals, his passing and link up play hasn't been great either. He's simply not a natural finisher and at this level where one chance might be all you get to win or lose the game I feel Rashford or Vardy would be much stronger choices to start alongside Kane. Likewise Deli Ali has been an absolute passenger, I really fail to see the point of bringing Welbeck along when another centre mid would have been a far wiser choice.
 
iHicksy said:
Personally, I fail to see what Sterling offers up front that couldn't be provided by Rashford or Vardy. Sterling needs 4 clear cut chances to score and so far i've seen him miss two almost, open goals, his passing and link up play hasn't been great either. He's simply not a natural finisher and at this level where one chance might be all you get to win or lose the game I feel Rashford or Vardy would be much stronger choices to start alongside Kane. Likewise Deli Ali has been an absolute passenger, I really fail to see the point of bringing Welbeck along when another centre mid would have been a far wiser choice.
Click to expand...
Like someone said before (I think it was Grinner) Sterling makes runs and draws defenders, so his off the ball work is vital to our team. Unfortunately his teammates have not found the incisive passes to him and Kane. I think Sterling gets a bit isolated because Alli has been a passenger. Our front 4 clicking is vital at this stage of the tournament.

Edit: also a former Liverpool and current City player is never likely to get much love on this forum. That's not to say he can't improve for England, mind you.
 
England have stumbled into such an amazing opportunity here that, despite not being English, I think I'm going to be genuinely angry when Southgate lines up in the exact same daft way that's so completely failed so far in this tournament. Obviously their outrageous luck will hold and they'll make the semis anyway, but, y'know, just imagine what a good manager could do with this situation...

mufcneville said:
He'd be a nightmare for Sweden tbh. Movement etc. but mostly because of the fact that he scored the first ever goal at Friends Arena (friendly but still).
Click to expand...

Surely the more pertinent fact is that the last time England played Sweden in a major tournament he scored the winner?
 
Dundrummer said:
England have stumbled into such an amazing opportunity here that, despite not being English, I think I'm going to be genuinely angry when Southgate lines up in the exact same daft way that's so completely failed so far in this tournament. Obviously their outrageous luck will hold and they'll make the semis anyway, but, y'know, just imagine what a good manager could do with this situation...



Surely the more pertinent fact is that the last time England played Sweden in a major tournament he scored the winner?
Click to expand...

And this incredible opportunity is...?
 
Sweden are in some ways the closest to England of the remaining 8 teams - they have ditched over-reliance on so-called superstars and replaced it with very solid, no frills organisation. The one difference is Kane, which is why I make England favourites, but only marginally.
 
Reading in this thread that Sweden is favourite against England... Their attacking solution is Marcus Berg, for crying out loud!
 
Judas said:
Not really. Disappointing, maybe, complete failure? Nah. People want to make it out like it would be a failure, but we're already over performing. It's not a very good team.
Click to expand...

England are barely performing at all. It's famously not a great squad, but it's a significantly better one than the football being produced would suggest.
 
Should be a more comfortable game stylistically for us than vs Colombia

Sweden don't have the natural athleticism of Colombia nor the flair to be a constant threat even if we're dominating possession. It's just whether we have the craft and guile to break through them and force them onto us before our concentration gives them their inevitable goal; really could have done with Foden/Sancho being born 2 years earlier.
 
England were comfortable until they brought Dier on and sat back. It never ever works, I understand the need to not be naive and too attacking but attack is always the best form of defence.
 
MoskvaRed said:
Sweden are in some ways the closest to England of the remaining 8 teams - they have ditched over-reliance on so-called superstars and replaced it with very solid, no frills organisation. The one difference is Kane, which is why I make England favourites, but only marginally.
Click to expand...
Fair assessment. Could be a game of few chances, but I'd back Kane to bury one more than the Swedish strikers. First goal probably decisive.
 
Can not wait to read all those fake congratz posts in here when England wins the damn thing.
 
R'hllor said:
Can not wait to read all those fake congratz posts in here when England wins the damn thing.
Click to expand...
How do you fake a congratulation? You either congratulate them or you don't. There's no other option.
 
dbs235 said:
England were comfortable until they brought Dier on and sat back. It never ever works, I understand the need to not be naive and too attacking but attack is always the best form of defence.
Click to expand...
I agree....i don't know if you are a Utd fan but it was like Schneiderlin for Mata against Arsenal in November 2016.

I can understand subs like Dier for Alli for the last few minutes if the opposite team has chance after chance but not if Colombia was so harmless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.