What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Quarter Finals

Eddie.

Bench
Messages
4,188
Terry's scrambling defense was good but had it not been for Balotelli's lax finishing he would have been caught out more than a few times.

He was OK, certainly not great IMO.

Not great maybe, however he has been one of the better defenders in the Euros. When your team in constantly having less then 40% of the ball there is a lot of work to do. I thought he was England's best in the Euros along with Gerrard.
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
Both teams were not garbage. England were garbage but Italy completely outlcassed us. When they weren't getting in a few decent long range shots, the likes of Pirlo and Montolivo were cutting us to shreds playing beautiful balls for Cassano and Balotelli to get in behind us.

They played football. Good, creative football. We defended and struggled to put 5 passes together. One good team, one woeful team. Thankfully the good team progressed...

So England were garbage and Italy completely outclassed a garbage team 0 f*cking 0 after 120 mins of football. Thats not outclassing someone, thats passing sideways a bit.

When they were not creating anything so were taking on stupid long range shots (sorry decent, one of the post, the rest wide) they were clipping the ball over for the strikers to not do anything.


Yes England could not put 5 passes together, but thats hopefully the end of Parker and Gerrards England careers because they both are rubbish.
 

hybrid_tiger

Coach
Messages
11,684
So England were garbage and Italy completely outclassed a garbage team 0 f*cking 0 after 120 mins of football. Thats not outclassing someone, thats passing sideways a bit.

When they were not creating anything so were taking on stupid long range shots (sorry decent, one of the post, the rest wide) they were clipping the ball over for the strikers to not do anything.


Yes England could not put 5 passes together, but thats hopefully the end of Parker and Gerrards England careers because they both are rubbish.

Italy created plenty, only poor finishing let them down.

As one of the commentators said, I've never seen a more one sided 0-0 draw in my life, it was a massacre.
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
Italy created plenty, only poor finishing let them down.

As one of the commentators said, I've never seen a more one sided 0-0 draw in my life, it was a massacre.

So Italy were totally dominant, except for all the times they were not good enough to score?
Italy were not even unlucky, Ukraine could of had a goal, Italy can't say that. Ukraine created more, and caused the defence more problems in a 1-0 loss than Italy did in the 0-0 snooze-fest.


If there was 3 cleared of the line, zero chances for England and something more than 40 yard shots either straight at the England player infront of the guy or to the advertising boards then yes it was a one sided massacre.

But there wasn't. It was just two poor teams playing boring negative stuff.
 

Big Sam

First Grade
Messages
8,976
But there wasn't. It was just two poor teams playing boring negative stuff.

:crazy: An amazing bit of denial even from a manure supporter.

Have a read of this:
http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season...match=2003346/postmatch/statistics/index.html

As you can see, here's why it was one-sided:
20 shots on target from Italy to 4 from England.

And here's why you're deluded in thinking it was "boring negative stuff":
The most shots on target of any game at this Euro.

I'm glad natural justice was done in the shootout. After the injustices at the Camp Nou and Munich in April and May it restored my faith in football.
 
Last edited:
Messages
33,280
Wayne Rooney flops at another international tournament although I do believe the 1 goal he scored makes it his second most successful tournament :lol:
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
:crazy: An amazing bit of denial even from a manure supporter.

Have a read of this:
http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season...match=2003346/postmatch/statistics/index.html

As you can see, here's why it was one-sided:
20 shots on target from Italy to 4 from England.

And here's why you're deluded in thinking it was "boring negative stuff":
The most shots on target of any game at this Euro.

I'm glad natural justice was done in the shootout. After the injustices at the Camp Nou and Munich in April and May it restored my faith in football.

Amazing bit of non reading skills there.

Who said they didn't have shots? They were mainly from distance. The ones that got on on target from close were blocked by defenders.

At no point was Hart struggling. Any team can have lots of shots if they walk upto the midfield and hit it. It isn't big and its not clever. Ukraine worried England more than Italy.

Nice cry about Chelsea by the way, still upset over the death of football?

Not sure what that got to do with a "Manure" :roll: supporter. You can't seem to get anything right. Must be the souths/scouse combo working overtime.
 

hybrid_tiger

Coach
Messages
11,684
So Italy were totally dominant, except for all the times they were not good enough to score?
Italy were not even unlucky, Ukraine could of had a goal, Italy can't say that. Ukraine created more, and caused the defence more problems in a 1-0 loss than Italy did in the 0-0 snooze-fest.


If there was 3 cleared of the line, zero chances for England and something more than 40 yard shots either straight at the England player infront of the guy or to the advertising boards then yes it was a one sided massacre.

But there wasn't. It was just two poor teams playing boring negative stuff.

Stop being ridiculous.

Of all Italy's shots, only FOUR were long range efforts. So they weren't "mainly from distance."

Of all of Pirlo's passes, only ONE was backwards. So they weren't "passing sideways a bit."

If Balotelli was more ruthless, he could have had a hat trick in the first half alone.

Diamanti should have scored. Nocerino could have scored twice (one offside). De Rossi should have scored from close range. Montolivo should have scored from close range, twice.

Please don't try and tell me Italy didn't create any chances, FFS. It's plain wrong.

To say they played negative football is just ridiculous. :lol:
 

hybrid_tiger

Coach
Messages
11,684
If England tried to play football, they would have started both Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott on the wings and had them running at the ITA fullbacks, who are decent players but suspect defensively. Milner offers nothing with the ball. Young was just about the worst England player in this tournament and completed more dives than passes.

They would also have taken off Rooney at half time, who was dreadful and completely abandoned any of his defensive responsibilies. They should have gone with Defoe as a sub, not Carroll. The latter was beaten to a header by Pirlo of all players as soon as he came off the bench. Both Barzagli and Bonucci are good in the air so pumping balls to Carroll is useless. Aside from that Carroll can't pass, and must have given away more balls than completed passes.
 

Jason Maher

Immortal
Messages
35,991
Interesting about Rooney. One of his biggest strengths is how much effort he makes to get back and defend. I wonder why he didn't do the same for England?
 

WireMan

Bench
Messages
4,479
If England tried to play football, they would have started both Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott on the wings and had them running at the ITA fullbacks, who are decent players but suspect defensively. Milner offers nothing with the ball. Young was just about the worst England player in this tournament and completed more dives than passes.

They would also have taken off Rooney at half time, who was dreadful and completely abandoned any of his defensive responsibilies. They should have gone with Defoe as a sub, not Carroll. The latter was beaten to a header by Pirlo of all players as soon as he came off the bench. Both Barzagli and Bonucci are good in the air so pumping balls to Carroll is useless. Aside from that Carroll can't pass, and must have given away more balls than completed passes.

Walcott came on in the second half. I'm not suprised you didn't notice, as he did nothing. Not one run, didn't come looking for it. On paper he has loads of pace etc. but he does not know how to use it. Its the same for the Ox, but he looks like he will learn for the World cup. Theo doesn't and will never get above the Lennon level of fast and not much else except the rare good game.

One reason for Young having a poor game/tournament was it was clear where the England attack was going. The right wing was a shambles. At united he has Nani or Valencia over there, and an (English) midfield who can actually pass the ball quickly and with accuracy to either wing giving him more time to work on something.
This is coupled with he fact he was told to stay so far back. When he got the ball in an attacking area he ran at the fullback ok and did a few dangerous crosses. Most of the time he picked it up way to deep, was surrounded by blue shirts and had little support coming from behind.

Interesting about Rooney. One of his biggest strengths is how much effort he makes to get back and defend. I wonder why he didn't do the same for England?

He was left watching long balls being played up, nothing from central mid and most 'passes' to him were from Hart if he kept it on the same side of the pitch as him. Its the kind of game 5 years ago he would of being sent of from.
If 8 or your team have been told to play like defenders whats the point on Rooney coming back. We had Young and Milner playing as wing backs, Gerrard as a third centre back and Parker doing god knows what.

Carroll coming on just destroyed all chance of playing decent football. It was a charter to play long balls which Carroll does not have the skill to hold up or flick on with any accuracy. The ball should be played by Gerrard or Parker to Rooneys feet, then he can shift it wide for a cross that Carroll can attack. Like he does for United.
 

hybrid_tiger

Coach
Messages
11,684
Walcott came on in the second half. I'm not suprised you didn't notice, as he did nothing. Not one run, didn't come looking for it. On paper he has loads of pace etc. but he does not know how to use it. Its the same for the Ox, but he looks like he will learn for the World cup. Theo doesn't and will never get above the Lennon level of fast and not much else except the rare good game.

I knew he came on, but he didn't start, that was my point.

I don't blame him for doing nothing as he never got the chance to due to the fact the side were sitting so deep and everytime they did get the ball somebody gave it away virtually immediately.

I know you will defend Young and obviously the set-up did not help him but he was by far and away the worst ENG player in this tournament. And his diving is among the worst in the world.
 

Latest posts

Top