Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The Official World Cup 2006 Thread

fhqwhgads said:
but baked beans, would you agree that argentina has done a much better job responding to this kind of defending than have some other pre-tournament favorites? or do you argue that for example s&m is just not a very good defensive side (despite their impressive goals against record in qualifying)?
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between having a good defence and getting 10 men behind the ball when the other team are on the attack. Argentina have a brilliant shape about them, they don't pack men behind the ball when defending, they then play the ball through midfield when they get the ball back.

would you say that argentina or perhaps spain wouldn't have done better against the aussies today or paraguay? is there just no way a great team can beat a lockdown d other than by squeaking by 1 or 2-0?
Click to expand...

You do realise 2-0 is a very good result don't you? That teams don't often score 4/5/6 goals?

Who knows how Spain or Argentina would have done against different teams (or England would have done against teams like s+m and ukraine)

Argentina have Riquelme who can open pick out the runs of crespo/saviola/tevez (who all work well together to pull defenders away from riquelme who picks up the run of the other player with a pin point pass.

Englands playmaker or 'link man' has been injured and will get his first start tomorrow. England also haven't quite got the center midfield sorted yet - the mix isn't quite right. A few tinkers and you will see a much more impressive performance and a less workman like display. win, lose or draw is the only real way to predict with much accuracy.

surely at some point you must concede you've made a mistake.
Click to expand...
What mistake? not getting the prediction right. I would take the 6-0 predictions with a pinch of salt if i were you.

perhaps you could respect someone else's opinion as informed even if it's not the same as yours.
Click to expand...

If his opinion was 1)informed and had any credibility 2) put it across as opinion and not fact. then maybe, yeah, i would.

I've been watching top level football for over 15 years (seriously) and have had this conversation many times with other people over the years.

Describing England as an "average team that don't defend with guts" and telling me that "england are going out to ecuador or germany" and "england will struggle to draw" hardly comes across as informed, its way off the mark.

I would sooner have scored three and conceded none than ' defend with guts" and conceded and lose.
 
BakedBeans said:
You do realise 2-0 is a very good result don't you?
Click to expand...

I hope you realise that with this single innocuous remark you have shot yourself in the foot and undone all your own arguments.

Describing England as an "average team that don't defend with guts"
Click to expand...
FACT: you fabricated that "quote", you should reserve quote marks for actual quotes.

and telling me that "england are going out to ecuador or germany"
Click to expand...
It's not unlikely, given what we've already seen.
and "england will struggle to draw" hardly comes across as informed, its way off the mark.
Click to expand...
Que? England did struggle against both the lowly teams they played and but for Terry's absolute wonder clearance off the line, England may have easily struggled to draw. As it was they struggled to win in the last 15 minutes including a goal 2 minutes into injury time. This is not my imagination, it's FACT.

I would sooner have scored three and conceded none than ' defend with guts" and conceded and lose.
Click to expand...

And there is the difference between a connoisseur of the game such as yourself and me, a mug punter. You just want England to win, whereas I want to see good football.
 
dogbone said:
I hope you realise that with this single innocuous remark you have shot yourself in the foot and undone all your own arguments.
Click to expand...

How so?

2-0 at international level is a good result.

(only 3 times in 29 games have a team scored more than 3 goals in one game, and only 7 times more than 2 goals (including the other 3) )
 
dogbone said:
FACT: you fabricated that "quote", you should reserve quote marks for actual quotes.
Click to expand...

FACT: you said (and i quote)

"England are an average team but they certainly don't defend with guts"

Which is the same thing.



Que? England did struggle against both the lowly teams they played and but for Terry's absolute wonder clearance off the line, England may have easily struggled to draw. As it was they struggled to win in the last 15 minutes including a goal 2 minutes into injury time. This is not my imagination, it's FACT.
Click to expand...

but they didnt stuggle to draw did they.... FACT, so your wrong, again FACT


And there is the difference between a connoisseur of the game such as yourself and me, a mug punter. You just want England to win, whereas I want to see good football.
Click to expand...

Firstly, football is about winning things. Secondly, I don't want to see England do anything. thats another FACT for you.
 
BakedBeans said:
How so?

2-0 at international level is a good result.
Click to expand...
Only if the result is the only consideration. Why do we bother to play football at all, why not just toss a coin to decide the winner.

(only 3 times in 29 games have a team scored more than 3 goals in one game, and only 7 times more than 2 goals (including the other 3) )
Click to expand...
Australia scored 3 goals in 7 minutes against the winners of the Asia division.
 
dogbone said:
Only if the result is the only consideration. Why do we bother to play football at all, why not just toss a coin to decide the winner.
Click to expand...

What a crap point. The objective is to win, thats the game, beat the team is infront of you.

Australia scored 3 goals in 7 minutes against the winners of the Asia division.
Click to expand...

Which is a good result, seeing as they were distinctly average for the rest of the game.

Liverpool scored three goals in 6 minutes against one of the best teams in world football... thats what i care most about.
 
BakedBeans said:
Englands playmaker or 'link man' has been injured and will get his first start tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Is that Rooney? I have been out the country a while, so is Owen Rooney the dream team or is the FACT! that Crouch has been on winning England teams I believe in the last 13 appearances going to keep Owen on the bench as a super sub.
 
billyboy said:
Is that Rooney? I have been out the country a while, so is Owen Rooney the dream team or is the FACT! that Crouch has been on winning England teams I believe in the last 13 appearances going to keep Owen on the bench as a super sub.
Click to expand...

Well, the reason why Crouch is not starting (or probably playing at all) is the same as gerrard, they are bth on yellow cards.

Crouch hs been the top man for england whilst Rooney has been injured and owen has been getting match fit. Now that Rooney is back, he must start, in my opinion anyway. the choice if between crouch and owen.. if owen is sharp then there is really no contest because of his proven top class goal scoring for club and country. the problem is that he isnt sharp and crouch has scored 6 goals in his last 5 games.....

just have to wait until the second round to see what will happen. if owen gets a brace against sweden all will be forgotten (like it always is - ive seen it both at liverpool and england.. injured then gets criticized and then bangs the goals in)
 
BakedBeans said:
England also haven't quite got the center midfield sorted yet - the mix isn't quite right. A few tinkers and you will see a much more impressive performance and a less workman like display.
Click to expand...
I agree totally that we need to look at how the midfield works. What concerns me is that after having a couple of years to get the mix right, we're now in a major tournament and we still haven't got it worked out. Any tinkering now should be to deal with injuries or suspensions, not to try to work out the balance of the team. Get it right, and we do genuinely have a chance – my worry is we've left it too late.
 
Jaffa Cake said:
I agree totally that we need to look at how the midfield works. What concerns me is that after having a couple of years to get the mix right, we're now in a major tournament and we still haven't got it worked out. Any tinkering now should be to deal with injuries or suspensions, not to try to work out the balance of the team. Get it right, and we do genuinely have a chance – my worry is we've left it too late.
Click to expand...

get fat frank out :D

Thats the answer to it all ;)

Seriously though, it doesnt take a genius to see that lennon (shoudl have been wright Phillips really)needs to play and carrick needs to play.

i would sooner have this midfield at the moment

----------------Carrick
Lennon--------------------------Beckham
----------------Gerrard-------------------

--------Owen-----------Rooney

Becks spends half his time on the left anyway and is probably the best on the right. Rooney is good enough and smart enough to drop into that midfield when we are defending and can give us a 4-5-1 if need be.

there is a lot of possible combination in svens diamond formation but lampard and gerrard in the middle aint working half aswell as it should. Gerrard stuck to the centerback isnt helping anyone.
 
BakedBeans said:
There is a big difference between having a good defence and getting 10 men behind the ball when the other team are on the attack. Argentina have a brilliant shape about them, they don't pack men behind the ball when defending, they then play the ball through midfield when they get the ball back.



You do realise 2-0 is a very good result don't you? That teams don't often score 4/5/6 goals?
Click to expand...

yes, i do. (here's a good example of a place it wouldn't hurt to try to be a little less condescending, incidentally.) and in the world cup a win is a good result, period. but in the two games i was referring to the second goal came very late, and the results were far from certain throughout the game. (i'm sure you'll say that for you it was never in doubt, but you've got very strong pre-conceived notions about a game, and even your post-game analysis rarely matches up with neutral journalists.)

Who knows how Spain or Argentina would have done against different teams (or England would have done against teams like s+m and ukraine)

Argentina have Riquelme who can open pick out the runs of crespo/saviola/tevez (who all work well together to pull defenders away from riquelme who picks up the run of the other player with a pin point pass.

Englands playmaker or 'link man' has been injured and will get his first start tomorrow. England also haven't quite got the center midfield sorted yet - the mix isn't quite right. A few tinkers and you will see a much more impressive performance and a less workman like display. win, lose or draw is the only real way to predict with much accuracy.

What mistake? not getting the prediction right. I would take the 6-0 predictions with a pinch of salt if i were you.
Click to expand...

look, i'm really not interested in arguing with you about this, and it seems like this is going to be one of those deals where we quibble over words and stuff and you tell me you meant something just a little different than what you said or something. i'm just trying to say, you knew what england's squad was, who would play, and who wouldn't--it's not as if you expected rooney to start when you said they'd light up the other team. you knew who they'd play and that they'd play defense. i don't care if you get the score right, but you clearly expected a dominating, goal-scoring display, and it didn't happen. i'm just saying, you look silly to me when you lecture any and every dissenting voice that suggests (in whatever words) that they're not playing to their potential when it's obvious they're not playing up to your expectations either--even if that is only down to finishing, as i'm sure you'll jump to point out or suggest (and the same applies to brazil, too). it seems like it wouldn't hurt to just say "you're right, they're not doing as well as i'd thought, but..." since they're a team you proudly advertise not supporting almost as often as you get all lathered up defending them (and whose criticism you consistently and inexplicably feel is a shot at you), saying you overestimated them just a tiny bit shouldn't be a huge deal for you.

we're just discussing a sporting event--it's ok to be wrong, and it's ok to disagree with someone without calling their intelligence into question. now if this were about politics, naturally we'd all have our knives out and it would be perfectly justified. :p
 
You might want to read back and look at just how heavily I have critized them. If I thought I was wrong, then I would admit it, but I have seen this all to often.

For the record, If someone was saying something of the mark about Brazil or spain I would defend them too (or criticize them if thats the case) - its not just England - they happen to be the team in question at the moment. People seem to be judging the performance against the result and time the goals were scored. England could have had 6 against T+T Crouch, Owen and lampard all missing good chances, if those had gone in, then it would be a completely different story.
 
BakedBeans said:
Becks spends half his time on the left anyway and is probably the best on the right. Rooney is good enough and smart enough to drop into that midfield when we are defending and can give us a 4-5-1 if need be.

there is a lot of possible combination in svens diamond formation but lampard and gerrard in the middle aint working half aswell as it should. Gerrard stuck to the centerback isnt helping anyone.
Click to expand...

as i don't live in england i don't know what the press say, but it just seems such a waste not to play both lampard and gerrard (although i'd definitely agree it's not working to play them)--does anyone ever suggest a 3-5-2 (with a fit rooney) to let them play alongside each other? i can think of more reasons that wouldn't work than it would (not least of which would be the fact that sven wouldn't leave the 4-4-2 for really anything), but...gosh--they're both so gifted, it seems a shame to leave one out. but i definitely agree that if only one plays it has to be gerrard and that it's insane to have him very far from the goal if he's on the pitch as he's proven he's capable of turning a match nearly single-handedly with liverpool.
 
fhqwhgads said:
as i don't live in england i don't know what the press say, but it just seems such a waste not to play both lampard and gerrard (although i'd definitely agree it's not working to play them)--does anyone ever suggest a 3-5-2 (with a fit rooney) to let them play alongside each other? i can think of more reasons that wouldn't work than it would (not least of which would be the fact that sven wouldn't leave the 4-4-2 for really anything), but...gosh--they're both so gifted, it seems a shame to leave one out. but i definitely agree that if only one plays it has to be gerrard and that it's insane to have him very far from the goal if he's on the pitch as he's proven he's capable of turning a match nearly single-handedly with liverpool.
Click to expand...


The thing is, the press don't really understand football... they expect the best players to play and that it will be an instant success, football isn't like that.

Lampard was an average player until he moved to chelsea and had an anchor man behind him (Makalele) he obviously doesnt have that at international level and i think he should be dropped because he is adding nothing to the team.

3-5-2 is really a formation for wing backs and could work if they had a right sided version of ashley cole, i however don't think it works unless you have a specific crop of players.

4-5-1 is my favored formation when you have fast wingers but england really only have one in lennon so a 4-4-1-1 seems the best bet with carrick giving gerrard the attacking freedom he deserves. Formations are never (or should never) really be rigid, the whole point is to be fluid.
 
BakedBeans said:
You might want to read back and look at just how heavily I have critized them. If I thought I was wrong, then I would admit it, but I have seen this all to often.

For the record, If someone was saying something of the mark about Brazil or spain I would defend them too (or criticize them if thats the case) - its not just England - they happen to be the team in question at the moment. People seem to be judging the performance against the result and time the goals were scored. England could have had 6 against T+T Crouch, Owen and lampard all missing good chances, if those had gone in, then it would be a completely different story.
Click to expand...

haha, ok. we'll leave it.
 
so i'm definitely looking forward to the spain match today, but anyone have any predictions about togo? will they show up, literally or figuratively? i'm not expecting to see especially pretty football, but i've got to think that game will be at least interesting to watch. probably nothing out of the usual will happen, which i guess is good from the perspective of the team not shaming themselves and their country. but there are lots of other, very interesting possibilities that could develop before and after kick-off that would be both sad and historical.
 
BakedBeans,

*If* Ecuador draws or beats Germany, what do you think Sven's tactics will be against Sweden. Do you think England would be giving it 100% under these circumstances? The way I see it, if he doesn't bring out Walcott for at least 45 minutes then I fail to see the point in taking up a world cup spot by bringing him over.
 
dogbone said:
BakedBeans,

*If* Ecuador draws or beats Germany, what do you think Sven's tactics will be against Sweden. Do you think England would be giving it 100% under these circumstances? The way I see it, if he doesn't bring out Walcott for at least 45 minutes then I fail to see the point in taking up a world cup spot by bringing him over.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagreed about the taking of walcott in the first place, but I agree with you, if he doesnt play - it is just a wasted spot. It's 4 years to early for walcott if you ask me.

England will play to win against sweden, although they don't have a great record against them. rooney and owen will start, with hargreaves taking gerrards place.
 
dogbone said:
It's only now that it is dawning on the English that their cricket team is in fact made up of a couple of good player and a bunch of sissy girlies who are going to get such a whipping in Australia this year... :)
Click to expand...

Would those two good players be called Wilkinson and Johnson?!!!! And thew sissies, delalio and back? Ooops, I do believe they were in another competition the English whipped you at against all the odds :)

Maybe stop for a quick Castlemain and think of a come back to that!!!!

ps In all serousness, I thought Australia were really good against Brazil and if they had had a finisher they could have won that game. Maybe Sven will loan you that old racehorse Alan Shearer.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back