The 2006 team was far better than this one.
The "England have had it easy" narrative
- Thread starter Alex99
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The 2006 team was far better than this one.
at all the idiots who were already looking forward to playing France in the finalsWhy is it always overlooked that defending deep and soaking pressure leads to more fatigue because :-
Every long pass and clearance leads to a sprint.
Every sprint is of a longer distance due to depth of defensive block meaning more field to cover.
Frequency of sprinting increases the deeper the defensive block falls back
In short. If you choose to invite pressure and sit back and play that way, do not be surprised when the opposition who rest on the ball and sprint in much shorter intervals retain their legs when you don't.
Every long pass and clearance leads to a sprint.
Every sprint is of a longer distance due to depth of defensive block meaning more field to cover.
Frequency of sprinting increases the deeper the defensive block falls back
In short. If you choose to invite pressure and sit back and play that way, do not be surprised when the opposition who rest on the ball and sprint in much shorter intervals retain their legs when you don't.
The tactics were not wrong. England had plenty of opportunities to score. He brought on Rashford too late but conceding two goals which was avoidable was the biggest issue. Two goals with an experienced defence line probably would not have conceded.
Off course England had it easy the only two good teams they faced beat them .
Any other time of the year you would expect England to beat Sweden , Panama and Tunisia as well as getting a point against Columbia at least .
It was a very fortunate ride to the semis and you took advantage but at the end of the day you were nowhere near good enough when it mattered .
France would have beaten England by 3 easy .
Any other time of the year you would expect England to beat Sweden , Panama and Tunisia as well as getting a point against Columbia at least .
It was a very fortunate ride to the semis and you took advantage but at the end of the day you were nowhere near good enough when it mattered .
France would have beaten England by 3 easy .
Im sure you have data and experience at the top level to come to this conclusion. I'm sure it's not based on emotion and ideological assumptions.
Well it’s not quiet that simple in that the tactics of the other team push you back.
Their midfield dominated in the second half and given the quality of our team in the middle we didn’t have an answer.
It’s like blaming Everton for getting pegged back by United. It happens.
But how did they get those chances? They totally played through our midfield.
Our refusal to change the system is precisely what caused us those problems in the first place. You can blame individuals all you like, but they were hardly helped. And even then, when trying to get back into the match, surely a change was needed? I mean we hardly created much towards the end did we.
This is only true if your entire team totally commits to every counter. Which isn't usually how it works. 2-4 attacking players will break. If you stay compact and make prospecting long ball attempts and just 1 or 2 players are involved in the initial counter, the majority of the side doesn't actually run very far unless the break is absolutely on.
I don't think you're wrong in your general statement that defending results in more fatigue. I just don't think counter attacks is why you get more fatigued. Defending is inherently a more energy spending way to play. It's pretty simple. An attacker knows what they are doing, where they are moving, what intensity they are moving at. The defender is 100% reacting to the offensive player, the stakes are higher, they don't know where they attacked is going, what they are doing, they don't know what intensity they are making this move at. So the defender always has to be safe and give more effort to match the offensive player.
Go out in the park with a buddy, and say "Ok, now run around a bit and try to lose me", the guy chasing is going to get far more tired, far more quickly if both guys are of equal fitness.
Everyone at work telling me that Croatia will be easy
Work tomorrow is going to be so much funEveryone at work telling me that Croatia will be easy
You would actually expect England to soundly beat Colombia as well. They couldn’t cope once they had real competition.
Everyone at work telling me that Croatia will be easy
In fairness I can understand that. Scotland have never lost to the Croatians.
The eye test is sufficient.
If you choose to sit deeper as a block, it means that when you win the ball back most of your team, and theirs, are situated in one half of the field. The congestion alone makes playing football on the floor very difficult, especially if the team don't possess excellent ball-carriers. This is why possession proponents, for example, believe in their approach, because if you lose the ball in the opposition half, they're all usually in front of you and passing options are going to be very limited if the opposition tries to play it out under those conditions.
It would be understandable if England were pushed back, but even early on in the first half we shifted back further and further looking for decisive counter attacks. In one half I can't count the amount of times, deep with the ball, we hit Sterling long and high and he sprinted relentless every single time. It's not emotional or ideological to surmise that sprinting from within your own half to the oppositions box is significantly more difficult than say Perisic sprinting off the ball from 10 yards in the England half to the edge of the 18 yard box.
Again, the deeper the team has more pitch in front of them to sprint into. The larger the distance between the defensive block and the forwards, the more isolation there is and more chance that Croatia will sweep up second balls, which is precisely what happened in that game. Sprinting half a field for a long ball, repeatedly is much more likely to result in fatigue than the short distant sprints which Croatia engaged in confined to one half of a field.
According to Elo, England lost to the sides now ranked 3rd and 5th, drew with the 10th and beat those 18th, 47th and 61st. Another game against third placed Belgium to come.
I had England down as a team 5-10th best in the world coming into this, so fully expected them to get through their group and be competitive in the knockout rounds depending on who they drew. Only really feel Brazil, France, Germany and possibly Belgium and Spain are categorically better sides, with England in the bunch behind them.
A semi-final is probably a slight overachievement therefore, but actually I think England underperformed as a team. There was the makings of a good side here, but we didn’t really see it consistently. First 30 minutes against Tunisia was incredible, first half against Panama was bonkers, and Sweden was composed, but England consistently failed to work the goal from open play.
Southgate will, rightly so, get a lot of credit for how he managed the camp and brought the country onboard, but objective analysis will be unkind to the performances he got from the team against the better teams. It’s a small sample of games and he should be backed for the Euros, but he may want to bring some gifted coaches into the setup. Thankfully, I think he is a smart guy and will know that England were capable of delivering a lot more and that we couldn’t ordinarily expect to get so close to a final with this level of performance.
I had England down as a team 5-10th best in the world coming into this, so fully expected them to get through their group and be competitive in the knockout rounds depending on who they drew. Only really feel Brazil, France, Germany and possibly Belgium and Spain are categorically better sides, with England in the bunch behind them.
A semi-final is probably a slight overachievement therefore, but actually I think England underperformed as a team. There was the makings of a good side here, but we didn’t really see it consistently. First 30 minutes against Tunisia was incredible, first half against Panama was bonkers, and Sweden was composed, but England consistently failed to work the goal from open play.
Southgate will, rightly so, get a lot of credit for how he managed the camp and brought the country onboard, but objective analysis will be unkind to the performances he got from the team against the better teams. It’s a small sample of games and he should be backed for the Euros, but he may want to bring some gifted coaches into the setup. Thankfully, I think he is a smart guy and will know that England were capable of delivering a lot more and that we couldn’t ordinarily expect to get so close to a final with this level of performance.
Another aspect of it, which you rightly highlighted. Defending with that level of concentration is mentally draining for such long periods. Mental fatigue has a carry over to physical performance. But you're right, of course, defending is reactive in nature, which does expend more energy overall.
I agree regarding counter-attacking. The initial phase of it is usually in small groups, of course. Therein is probably my concern with it in general. For me, it creates isolation, I like my teams to move forward with the ball as a unit, as a whole, that way if you lose it you're always nearby to win it back, and you've always go options on the ball. With England tonight with the same group running and running and the same defensive group holding back, I can't help but worry about the central position becoming ever more vulnerable. At least, for me, that's how I saw it with Henderson. The only out balls he had were back to CB passes or passes to wing backs under pressure.
Last edited:
You bottled the easiest knockout draw in decades against a country with a tenth of your population.
The problem was the centrebacks as it has been all tournament. All three of them poor on the ball and poor at defending when they don't have it.
You try to use that to compensate for having no midfield and a good team is always going to grind you down...And a decent one will always have a chance to pick you off.
At the end of it all the players have done fine but the best team we beat was an average Sweden side.
It's something to build on but the danger during the tournament was always the complete ignorance of our glaring weaknesses. Sterling starting every game and changes not being made when our system was causing us problems. The danger now is in not trying to address the issues going forwards. England need to find a functioning midfield and a way to get some actual use out of Sterling and Rashford.
You try to use that to compensate for having no midfield and a good team is always going to grind you down...And a decent one will always have a chance to pick you off.
At the end of it all the players have done fine but the best team we beat was an average Sweden side.
It's something to build on but the danger during the tournament was always the complete ignorance of our glaring weaknesses. Sterling starting every game and changes not being made when our system was causing us problems. The danger now is in not trying to address the issues going forwards. England need to find a functioning midfield and a way to get some actual use out of Sterling and Rashford.
I can’t find a reason to critique the defence. Thought they all did well generally. Our entire team was set up for sterling tonight and he had the ball and the chances but had no end product. You can lead a horse to water....
I'm sure your eye is really good. And then some post-hoc justification. Someone can say exactly the opposite of you and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. In fact one of the justifications of playing a low block and playing long balls to the forward is to do the opposite of what you are claiming, to preserve energy by not travelling up the pitch and only committing a few players forward.
No striker will sprint half the field for a long ball from a low block because he's the furthest player up the pitch and hugging the centre backs. If he is sprinting half the pitch then the long balls are utter shite.
Either the wrong thread or just a shockingly terrible post.
Well it's certainly an improvement over getting knocked out by a country with 0.6% of our population in the first knockout stage.
For the talent played far more boring football than this team.
Out of 6 games, England managed to impress against only Sweden and Panama. Considering the PL/CL level talent at their disposal, it's a pretty average effort at best. I don't think the whole "It's Coming Home" campaign did them any favours though, since the England sqaud will be consuming the same media we do. The public feeling rapidly switched from "just do your best, no expectations" to "we're finally going to win the world cup, these players will all be heroes! ". That was suddenly a whole lot more pressure on their shoulders, and it's going to make them feel even worse now they've missed the chance.
The team that has scored a million goals from dead ball situations and punts long balls when defending a lead?
Maguire poor on the ball.
I do agree second half was a game where Walker was constantly tested for first time in tournament at general defensive play and he came up short. Don't see him as long term fit in a back 3 anyway.
Stones wasn't too bad but just switches off top often in top level games.
England long term need a rapid CB to come through, maybe Lascelles would be worth a look?
What a load of shit.
For a start, how the feck is a semi final of the world cup considered "average at best" for any team, let alone England? As for the pressure nonsense, this tournament has to be the least hyped I can remember (though it was still hyped a lot of course) so I'm not buying that angle one bit. If anything they've thrived on largely being left to it much more than any England squad before them.
England were horrible to watch in 2006 and also 2010. Good individual players but played in a completely restrained system. At least this group played in more flexible way e.g. rotation of the ball and players moving around e.g. Alli breaking from midfield which got the free kick in the first place.
2006 games were:
Paraguay 1-0- Own goal from Beckham free kick after five minutes and then very dull game afterwards. Lampard kept shooting miles over the bar is what I mainly remember from that.
Trinidad and Tobago 2-0- That year's Panama. England took about 80 minutes to score a goal.
Sweden 2-2- Joe Cole scored great volley in this. Sweden had better individual team than this years, completely battered England in second half.
Ecuador 1-0- Horrible game rescued by lovely Beckham FK.
Portugal 0-0- Everyone knows what happens here. I'd say that Portugal team were on similar level to Croatia this year.
When you look at it 2006 run was actually similar to standard of teams in this years tournament. I know which team I enjoyed watching more.
Everyone brings up Sterling, but at least he causes worry amongst the opposition and tries something. Dele Alli was pretty much a passenger all tournament.
To be honest, this side lacked any guile, cutting edge or magic. We were reliant on set pieces and that can only carry you so far before you eventually need to actually break a team down. We looked devoid of ideas after a while and it only got worse as the game wore on.
To be honest, this side lacked any guile, cutting edge or magic. We were reliant on set pieces and that can only carry you so far before you eventually need to actually break a team down. We looked devoid of ideas after a while and it only got worse as the game wore on.
The following teams have put England out of World Cups since 66:
1970: Germany
1982: Spain
1986: Argentina
1990: Germany
1998: Argentina
2002: Brazil
2006: Portugal
2010: Germany
2014: Uruguay
2018: Croatia
Looking at that list, is there not actually an argument to be made that this is one of England's most disappointing world cup exits?
Obviously I'm trolling a little, but not entirely...
1970: Germany
1982: Spain
1986: Argentina
1990: Germany
1998: Argentina
2002: Brazil
2006: Portugal
2010: Germany
2014: Uruguay
2018: Croatia
Looking at that list, is there not actually an argument to be made that this is one of England's most disappointing world cup exits?
Obviously I'm trolling a little, but not entirely...
Maguire poor on the ball.
I do agree second half was a game where Walker was constantly tested for first time in tournament at general defensive play and he came up short. Don't see him as long term fit in a back 3 anyway.
Stones wasn't too bad but just switches off top often in top level games.
England long term need a rapid CB to come through, maybe Lascelles would be worth a look?
Maguire is very poor on the ball. I've said this before about the likes of him and Stones, but the ability to take 10 touches before playing the same pass anyoone else could play after 1 touh, doesn't make you good with the ball. It makes you slow with it, which in turn makes it very easy for the opposition to press you and organise themselves. Which is what happened tonight.
If every other centreback on earth passed the ball to opposition players all the time, then Maguire/Stones etc. would be good on the ball by comparison. In reality they just do what other centrebacks do but much slower. You look at Belgium who play three at the back. One centreback gets the ball, one touch, plays the best or most simple pass available to them. Next one gets it, one touch, same thing. Every single time. Even when it goes sideways it's moving all the time. There is literally no pointless fecking about.
Maguire gets it and strolls slowly up the pitch for 10 seconds, then plays the same pass he could have 10 seconds ago, by which time the person he passes it to has no choice but to either give it back to the centrebacks or lose the ball. Stones gets it, does the same thing, and even fecking points where he's going to pass the ball to before he passes it there. Why? He was still doing this tonight when Croatia had their midfield directly pressing our defence. He puts his foot on the ball, and then points. What is he doing this for? In what way does this make you better on the ball than someone who doesn't do this? It makes you an idiot who is making it very easy for the other team to press you. Unless you're going to score from your own half somehow, just pass the fecking ball to a team mate.
Walker is actuallly the least culpable of the three on the ball, but as you said, he isn't that great at defending and his decision making is strange. He seemed to get wound up after half time and started doing stupid things. I just don't think he's particularly smart. He's similar for City. He's the one in their team you know you can get at by winding him up a bit.
Not true if you have players who can find a pass from deep
England just hoof ballers
BecUse you played 2 teams of note and lost twice
Probably the easiest ever route to a semi final not that that is your fault but when t came to the crunch over inflated egos and thoughts on how good your players were came back after winning against Sweden a team of journeymen
Found wanting at the top tier again
But completely true statement
Not really. We didn't lose 4-1 to anyone, or go out by not even qualifying in the first place (94)...or without even winning a game.
I think we did the best you could realistically expect withh the players we have. Where as other world cups, even if we've lost to a better tema than us, the performances en route to doing so have been, well, crap basically. Last one before this you can really say we did ourselves justice at was 2002.
I'm sorry, google doesn't translate gibberish. Any chance you could make more sense?
Yeah, feck Croatia and their shit team England should have walked all over. What was I thinking eh?
What England do lack is that tempo player in the middle.
Ever since Scholes really (although of course he wasn't even played in central middle). A Pirlo, Modric, Iniesta or even Pogba who can up or slow down the game when in possession and keep the side calm and moving.
Not sure who the obvious candidate is for that role. Said I'd have taken Shelvey as a wildcard squad option as he does have playmaking ability although I know his level is nowhere near those mentioned.
Maybe if Grealish gets a premier league move in next few weeks he could develop into that sort although he's a number 10 playmaker at this point in time.
Maybe Lallana worth trying out if he can stay fit for five minutes?
Alli, Loftus Cheek, Lingard, Sterling, too many runners in central midfield to really control games v better teams.
Ever since Scholes really (although of course he wasn't even played in central middle). A Pirlo, Modric, Iniesta or even Pogba who can up or slow down the game when in possession and keep the side calm and moving.
Not sure who the obvious candidate is for that role. Said I'd have taken Shelvey as a wildcard squad option as he does have playmaking ability although I know his level is nowhere near those mentioned.
Maybe if Grealish gets a premier league move in next few weeks he could develop into that sort although he's a number 10 playmaker at this point in time.
Maybe Lallana worth trying out if he can stay fit for five minutes?
Alli, Loftus Cheek, Lingard, Sterling, too many runners in central midfield to really control games v better teams.
Reasonable perspective you didn’t throw up in the group stage and beat every team you could reasonably expect to beat regardless of the draw and all of that. There is not much more a team of players can do to be fair