Jump to content

England v Kosovo


Mikey1874

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    22

  • JackLadd

    22

  • shaun.lawson

    16

  • Cruyff Turn

    14

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest ToqueJambo
1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Indeed you do. But it's a total irrelevance now.

 

Is our overall record pathetic? Sure. In World Cup terms, it's top eight but no more than that. But then, that's kinda inevitable given we still had 11-year-olds running around on full size pitches until earlier this decade - and given the historic tendency in our league for the big hoof and football at 1000 mph. 

 

Is that changing now? Slowly, yes - with the biggest reason being the influence of brilliant foreign managers. Guardiola helped Spain win the 2010 World Cup. Guardiola and Klopp helped Germany win the 2014 World Cup. And Guardiola, Klopp and Pochettino have helped England become a good side again... if one with still plenty to do if it's to cross the huge chasm separating semi-finalists and winners.

 

You can make all the excuses you want. England's record is pitiful when comparing them with their peers. And there is still no proof their a good side when it comes to the finals. They had an incredibly easy run  to the semis in 2018. The three times they came up against countries (much smaller countries) with any quality they lost and didn't even look like winning. Belgium strolled past them and Croatia hammered them 2-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

How much did England overdo possession?  It was boring to watch, almost annoying,  while Kosovo were refreshing in their approach. 

 

 

 

We're still seeking the right balance. The World Cup was a defensive patch-up job which worked incredibly well overall but was never gonna stand a chance against the best sides. So we went back to 4-3-3, beat Croatia and won in Spain... but that night in Seville, we almost blew it completely - they really might've won - and we only had 27% possession. That's not sustainable either.

 

Somewhere in there is a happy medium between being circumspect in possession but more ambitious than we were in Russia. The best sides can be both proactive and reactive with equal quality. To achieve that balance, Maddison, Mount and before much longer, Foden, will be crucial. 

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

We're still seeking the right balance. The World Cup was a defensive patch-up job which worked incredibly well overall but was never gonna stand a chance against the best sides. So we went back to 4-3-3, beat Croatia and won in Spain... but that night in Seville, we almost blew it completely - they really might've won - and we only had 27% possession. That's not sustainable either.

 

Somewhere in there is a happy medium between being circumspect in possession but more ambitious than we were in Russia. The best sides can be both proactive and reactive with equal quality. To achieve that medium, Maddison, Mount and before much longer, Foden, will be crucial. 

There’s picking the right time to spring forward and there’s lingering too long on the ball. 

 

Maybe there was a touch of complacency about England too but they seemed to be parading like peacocks, showing off that they can keep the ball instead of working at something purposeful. 

 

This is where England will fall down v stronger sides. Too much emphasis on slow build up when there should be more spark and cunning to find space further up the park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

You can make all the excuses you want. England's record is pitiful when comparing them with their peers. And there is still no proof their a good side when it comes to the finals. They had an incredibly easy run  to the semis in 2018. The three times they came up against countries (much smaller countries) with any quality they lost and didn't even look like winning. Belgium strolled past them and Croatia hammered them 2-1.

 

Belgium played us less than 3 days after we'd faced extra time. Of course they strolled past us! (Not that I think we'd have beaten them on the same rest, but we'd have made a better fist of it). England reserves losing 1-0 to Belgium reserves was a lot better for us than them. Croatia were both fully deserving winners and a side which was a miracle save from going 2-0 down. Some 'hammering'. 

 

But besides - that England side winning the World Cup would've been a bigger miracle than Leicester winning the league. We had no squad whatsoever. The question is whether we will by the time 2022 and 2026 roll around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

We're still seeking the right balance. The World Cup was a defensive patch-up job which worked incredibly well overall but was never gonna stand a chance against the best sides. So we went back to 4-3-3, beat Croatia and won in Spain... but that night in Seville, we almost blew it completely - they really might've won - and we only had 27% possession. That's not sustainable either.

 

Somewhere in there is a happy medium between being circumspect in possession but more ambitious than we were in Russia. The best sides can be both proactive and reactive with equal quality. To achieve that medium, Maddison, Mount and before much longer, Foden, will be crucial. 

 

Good luck with that 😂 Could be a long wait. I want Scotland to blood youngsters as we have no choice but England have a problem if they're going to be reliant on youngsters in midfield. All the best international teams have great, experienced midfielders pulling the strings.

 

It's funny because for years almost all of England's best talent was in midfield but no manager could get the best from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Debut 4 said:

There’s picking the right time to spring forward and there’s lingering too long on the ball. 

 

Maybe there was a touch of complacency about England too but they seemed to be parading like peacocks, showing off that they can keep the ball instead of working at something purposeful. 

 

This is where England will fall down v stronger sides. Too much emphasis on slow build up when there should be more spark and cunning to find space further up the park. 

 

Hence, of course, why finding those central midfield players with a bit of magic is so critical. Teams don't win big tournaments without them - and it's no coincidence that in both Paul Gascoigne's tournaments, England came closer to winning something than at any point since you-know-when. 

 

If we are to end the wait, Foden will be that man. We'll just have to see how he progresses, or whether Man City's brilliance means his path gets blocked off for too long. With regard to which, Sancho's shown the way: by going abroad and completely broadening his horizons and footballing education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

Belgium played us less than 3 days after we'd faced extra time. Of course they strolled past us! (Not that I think we'd have beaten them on the same rest, but we'd have made a better fist of it). England reserves losing 1-0 to Belgium reserves was a lot better for us than them. Croatia were both fully deserving winners and a side which was a miracle save from going 2-0 down. Some 'hammering'. 

 

But besides - that England side winning the World Cup would've been a bigger miracle than Leicester winning the league. We had no squad whatsoever. The question is whether we will by the time 2022 and 2026 roll around. 

 

That was a disgrace of a game. But also funny as England even struggled to lose that game. Croatia absolutely hammered England. They were all over them as I remember it - way more chances.

 

"We had no squad whatsoever."

 

This is the point isn't it. Why no squad when England is a massive, rich football nation? That's no excuse and goes back to the fact that they are the biggest underachievers around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, Ingerlund are smashing everybody in qualifying.

And as usual, they'll get papped out as soon as they meet a half decent team in the sharp end of a tournament.

 

:greggy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cade said:

As usual, Ingerlund are smashing everybody in qualifying.

And as usual, they'll get papped out as soon as they meet a half decent team in the sharp end of a tournament.

 

:greggy:

 

That's my take although they could get lucky and not face a decent side until the semis again like last year. Who did they beat to get to the Croatia game? Nobody remembers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

That was a disgrace of a game. But also funny as England even struggled to lose that game. Croatia absolutely hammered England. They were all over them as I remember it - way more chances.

 

"We had no squad whatsoever."

 

This is the point isn't it. Why no squad when England is a massive, rich football nation? That's no excuse and goes back to the fact that they are the biggest underachievers around.

 

No squad because:

 

1. England is a massive, rich football league. It's clubs over country in England (and Scotland). Always has been. England didn't so much invent football as invent club football - and the clubs hold all the power. The national team's never had a look-in. It's taken them until this season to finally bring in a winter break FFS - while all major European countries have had one for many years. 

 

2. England had the most backwards coaches imaginable until barely 5 years ago. So we're playing catch-up. I'm astonished the national team's risen this high this fast; it wasn't so long ago that I thought we'd be in the 2030s before the fruits of the changes in how we coach would be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackLadd said:

 

That's my take although they could get lucky and not face a decent side until the semis again like last year. Who did they beat to get to the Croatia game? Nobody remembers. 

 

1. That'd do me fine. :smoking:

 

2. I must've missed people calling Colombia 'crap' before we played them. And if Sweden were 'crap', what did that make Holland, who they helped knock out; France, who they beat; Italy, who they knocked out; or Germany, whose group they won while the defending Champs finished bottom?

 

Calling either Sweden or Colombia 'crap' is just a sign of incredible, mindblowing arrogance. Which, oh the irony, the English are always accused of. And since then, we've beaten Croatia and won in Spain. Clearly, we're a terrible side just waiting to be put out of our misery. :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

No squad because:

 

1. England is a massive, rich football league. It's clubs over country in England (and Scotland). Always has been. England didn't so much invent football as invent club football - and the clubs hold all the power. The national team's never had a look-in. It's taken them until this season to finally bring in a winter break FFS - while all major European countries have had one for many years. 

 

2. England had the most backwards coaches imaginable until barely 5 years ago. So we're playing catch-up. I'm astonished the national team's risen this high this fast; it wasn't so long ago that I thought we'd be in the 2030s before the fruits of the changes in how we coach would be seen.

 

These are still excuses. Other countries - Spain, Germany, France - have rich leagues with lots of foreigners and a few teams dominating. Other countries did poorly for a while then turned it around. Netherlands seem to be doing it this campaign. Germany might be in a transition right now but will probably be back soon. England, not so much.... never even close to winning something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. That'd do me fine. :smoking:

 

2. I must've missed people calling Colombia 'crap' before we played them. And if Sweden were 'crap', what did that make Holland, who they helped knock out; France, who they beat; Italy, who they knocked out; or Germany, whose group they won while the defending Champs finished bottom?

 

Calling either Sweden or Colombia 'crap' is just a sign of incredible, mindblowing arrogance. Which, oh the irony, the English are always accused of. And since then, we've beaten Croatia and won in Spain. Clearly, we're a terrible side just waiting to be put out of our misery. :rolleyes: 

 

We're talking long-term here aren't we? Obviously Colombia, Sweden, etc might put out good teams now and then. The point is England is a bigger football nation than both by some distance. And we're not talking about the odd win over Spain or whoever. We're talking about getting to a final or winning, which all of England's peer group, and some that are much smaller, have done more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

We're talking long-term here aren't we? Obviously Colombia, Sweden, etc might put out good teams now and then. The point is England is a bigger football nation than both by some distance. And we're not talking about the odd win over Spain or whoever. We're talking about getting to a final or winning, which all of England's peer group, and some that are much smaller, have done more often.

 

And for which there are good reasons: some of which are being acted upon, some of which are harder to act on (though Brexit might help in that regard). You'll get no argument from me on England's overall record, especially at the European Championship. You'll get plenty of argument from me on the current side: which is top six going on top four and likely to be in contention until 2026 at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. That'd do me fine. :smoking:

 

2. I must've missed people calling Colombia 'crap' before we played them. And if Sweden were 'crap', what did that make Holland, who they helped knock out; France, who they beat; Italy, who they knocked out; or Germany, whose group they won while the defending Champs finished bottom?

 

Calling either Sweden or Colombia 'crap' is just a sign of incredible, mindblowing arrogance. Which, oh the irony, the English are always accused of. And since then, we've beaten Croatia and won in Spain. Clearly, we're a terrible side just waiting to be put out of our misery. :rolleyes: 

 

Who's calling them crap? Colombia were certainly not a great side, beaten by Japan in the opener. England edged past them 4-3 on pens, and Sweden were awful without big Ibrahimovic, a bog ordinary team as bad as the one Scotland beat to get to France 98. Netherlands have been poor since 2014, maybe coming back now but still a bit to do to qualify for 2020. Croatia played the much better football than England throughout the WC tourney and deservedly papped them out but they can lose meaningless matches as you point out.

Edited by JackLadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackLadd said:

 

Who's calling them crap? Colombia were certainly not a great side, beaten by Japan in the opener. England edged past them on 4-3 on pens, and Sweden were awful without big Ibrahimovic, a bog ordinary team as bad as the one Scotland beat to get to France 98. Holland have been poor since 2014, maybe coming back now but still a bit to do to qualify for 2020. Croatia played the much better football than England throughout the WC tourney and deservedly papped them out but they can lose meaningless matches as you point out.

 

1. You stated that England faced no 'decent sides' until the semis. If Colombia weren't a decent side, I'm a Dutchman.

 

2. Without Ibrahimovic, Sweden - shall I say it again? - knocked out Holland, beat France (that's eventual tournament winners France), eliminated Italy - their first failure to qualify since 1958 - and won Germany's group while they failed to get out of the first round for the first time since before the war. For good measure, they then knocked out a Swiss side which had held Brazil and later that year, would trounce Belgium 5-2. 

 

With Ibrahimovic, Sweden achieved absolutely eff all. Without him, they achieved absolute wonders. If you dismiss them, you thereby dismiss France. If you dismiss them and thereby dismiss France, you thereby dismiss every single side in world football. Genius. 

 

3. You'll have to run past me how losing a 'meaningless game', as Croatia apparently did, involves them surrounding the ref and looking devastated at the end. But I forgot: it's only 'meaningless' if England win, and it's only a 'decent side' if England lose, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. You stated that England faced no 'decent sides' until the semis. If Colombia weren't a decent side, I'm a Dutchman.

 

2. Without Ibrahimovic, Sweden - shall I say it again? - knocked out Holland, beat France (that's eventual tournament winners France), eliminated Italy - their first failure to qualify since 1958 - and won Germany's group while they failed to get out of the first round for the first time since before the war. For good measure, they then knocked out a Swiss side which had held Brazil and later that year, would trounce Belgium 5-2. 

 

With Ibrahimovic, Sweden achieved absolutely eff all. Without him, they achieved absolute wonders. If you dismiss them, you thereby dismiss France. If you dismiss them and thereby dismiss France, you thereby dismiss every single side in world football. Genius. 

 

3. You'll have to run past me how losing a 'meaningless game', as Croatia apparently did, involves them surrounding the ref and looking devastated at the end. But I forgot: it's only 'meaningless' if England win, and it's only a 'decent side' if England lose, right?

 

 

Colombia are and were no great shakes, so I'm afraid you are a Dutchman.

 

Sweden were also pretty ordinary at the finals. Good win vs a Mexico B team that was already through. 

 

I'm not bothered about Scotland winning meaningless Euro qualifier games tbh, unless it's one vs England of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
15 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. You stated that England faced no 'decent sides' until the semis. If Colombia weren't a decent side, I'm a Dutchman.

 

2. Without Ibrahimovic, Sweden - shall I say it again? - knocked out Holland, beat France (that's eventual tournament winners France), eliminated Italy - their first failure to qualify since 1958 - and won Germany's group while they failed to get out of the first round for the first time since before the war. For good measure, they then knocked out a Swiss side which had held Brazil and later that year, would trounce Belgium 5-2. 

 

With Ibrahimovic, Sweden achieved absolutely eff all. Without him, they achieved absolute wonders. If you dismiss them, you thereby dismiss France. If you dismiss them and thereby dismiss France, you thereby dismiss every single side in world football. Genius. 

 

3. You'll have to run past me how losing a 'meaningless game', as Croatia apparently did, involves them surrounding the ref and looking devastated at the end. But I forgot: it's only 'meaningless' if England win, and it's only a 'decent side' if England lose, right?

 

So Sweden overachieved (again) while England underachieved. Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

So Sweden overachieved (again) while England underachieved. Again.

 

Sweden overachieved... and with the players we had, so did England. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

Kosova and Northern Macedonia would beat us. The Euros could have 50 countries qualify and we would still fail 

 

I wish FIFA would stop letting all these new countries in, just makes our ranking position even worse when they eventually overtake us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Plank said:

Shaun really makes me hate England.

Never hate anyone, other than H1b5 , England are our neighbours and will soon be our biggest trading partner outside the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J.T.F.Robertson

 

Enjoyed the way Kosova approached the game. Maybe a bit naive at times but technically good and entertaining to watch.

 

They have earned my approval. :smoking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Sweden overachieved... and with the players we had, so did England. 

 

 

You're having a laugh!

 

Harry Kane -  80m?

Sterling - 80m

Maguire - 80m

Deli Ali - 30m

Trippier - 20m

Stones - 47.5m

Walker - 50m

 

On the bench another bunch of multi-million pound players playing for top clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
5 hours ago, Independence said:

Never hate anyone, other than H1b5 , England are our neighbours and will soon be our biggest trading partner outside the EU.

 

An EU Scotland (post independence) would also be outside of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cade said:

As usual, Ingerlund are smashing everybody in qualifying.

And as usual, they'll get papped out as soon as they meet a half decent team in the sharp end of a tournament.

 

:greggy:

I wish we could do both, ATM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cade said:

As usual, Ingerlund are smashing everybody in qualifying.

And as usual, they'll get papped out as soon as they meet a half decent team in the sharp end of a tournament.

 

:greggy:

 

Well I suppose it gives you an interest in the tournament 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazzas right boot
38 minutes ago, iantjambo said:

Kosovo are a good team. They were on a 15 game unbeaten run up until last night.

They would hump us off the park.

 

Fecking hell. 

 

Depressing doesn’t quite cover it. 

They probably would beat us atm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Beni of Gorgie

A price tag does not equate directly to the value of a player merely how much someone is willing to pay for their services. 

This should not be mistaken,  the purchaser may have been oblivious to a better player at a smaller price 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Beni of Gorgie
11 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Fecking hell. 

 

Depressing doesn’t quite cover it. 

They probably would beat us atm. 

That is because we rip up every blueprint long before it ever has a hope of coming to fruition 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

A price tag does not equate directly to the value of a player merely how much someone is willing to pay for their services. 

This should not be mistaken,  the purchaser may have been oblivious to a better player at a smaller price 

 

 

How do you value something in monetary terms other than by what someone is willing to pay for it?

 

A price tag is what the seller hopes to realise. The selling price is the value the buyer places on the player.

 

Edited by Taffin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Beni of Gorgie
2 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

 

How do you value something in monetary terms other than by what someone is willing to pay for it?

 

A price tag is what the seller hopes to realise. The selling price is the value the buyer places on the player.

 

I think we agree? Price doesn't directly correlate to quality is the point 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Beni of Gorgie
1 minute ago, Taffin said:

👍👍 Yes, we do. 

I remember the time Rangers signed Hendry for 4 million and Celtic signed Moravcik for 300k.

 

Celtic were mocked. I cant think of a better example to be honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King

It’s probably been said but Kosovo were a breath of fresh air, teams can be scared playing England especially at Wembley, they weren’t and showed what a small country can do in the right circumstances. Over to you SFA and Stevie Clarke, I won’t hold my breath though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

It’s probably been said but Kosovo were a breath of fresh air, teams can be scared playing England especially at Wembley, they weren’t and showed what a small country can do in the right circumstances. Over to you SFA and Stevie Clarke, I won’t hold my breath though.

 

Wasn't at Wembley last night though :whistling:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
32 minutes ago, tian447 said:

 

Wasn't at Wembley last night though :whistling:

 

Yeah I mentioned teams bottling it at Wembley as maybe a reason they played well, Kosovo wanted it to be there though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...