BillyDWhizz wrote:Tfft. Loftus-Cheek made a difference as did Rashford. They must start next game surely.
Agree. Sterling shouldn't be anywhere near the team.
Brucie ain't bad for a Spud.
Brucie does what he does and that's about it. For a big fella he's got the upper body strength of a 12 year old girl, the poise of a pissed giraffe and the ball control skills of Douglas Bader. Still, if he keeps being Johnny on the spot and sticking the ball in the net it doesn't really matter how weak the rest of his game really is.
Who the fuck is General Failure and why is he reading my harddisk?
Without the type of player he has playing alongside him at Citeh, sterling is shite.
Absolute pile of cack, overrated up his own arse cunt. Should never play for England.
I've not watched England play for 90 mins since Capello and for the most part it looked very familiar.
On the plus side I really like Tripier, Stones is okay, Henderson surprised me, Alli is a good player albeit unfit/injured and in Kane England have a striker who looks like he can pop up and score regardless of the the teams performance. As mentioned above Rashford and Loftus Cheek added a bit of urgency from a bench that didn't look too clever.
Lingard, Sterling and Stones all taking air shots hints at the age-old problem we have controlling the football and there seems to be a problem passing the ball as ever.
Sterling is a bizarre player. He's fast but seems to stop at the point he's about to stretch a defence and oddly for a £50m winger he doesn't seem to have a trick and can't cross which is a massive hindrance. I still can't quite decide what Lingard is but unlike Sterling he does seem like he'll threaten the opposition goal and can at least link with Rashford and Alli.
Judging by what the commentators said they were not surprised to see walker playing as a center back in a three but I was certainly gobsmacked.
All in all though a win at the start of the group is a great result because 4 points may be enough and 5 certainly will. Tournament football is usually evolutionary so as long as Southgate has some bollocks and makes the changes to improve the team we might do alright.
Fair play to them in the end.
Up against a team just hellbent on camping 11 inside their own half, a soft as shite referee and what those pricks were doing in that VAR room, God only knows?
They kept going right until the end. Heads could've easily dropped and settled for the point.
That said, the "young team and inexperienced" speech from some pundits doesn't wash with me, so I'd rather not hear it rolled out as an excuse if/when things go tits up.
Where has "experience" ever gotten us in previous tournaments anyway?
It seems the only England squads that ever do any good are those without the "baggage" of experience (like the youth teams) because "experience" in England terms usually means bad ones.
Fancy calling your only son "Barnestoneworth"
He's got another name....
Yeah....."United"
England were excellent in the first half and played one of the best halves of the tournamentso far.You compare it to some of the shit served up in World Cup`s since 1990,normally stagnant and boring.
We laboured a bit in the 2nd half,but we thoroughly deserved our victory.
