• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Group B - England, Russia, Wales, Slovakia

Which teams will qualify from this pool?


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Probably yeah, I know what Furball is saying about the last 10 minutes but they never looked like scoring. Having said that I would not say with confidence that Slovakia or Wales will beat them.
I definitely have Slovakia and Wales as favourites. Russia almost literally don't have an attack and all of their players are hilariously immobile. They're not even particularly well organised in defence. Couple of supposedly decent players to come back though, so maybe that'll help.

From England's perspective I'm a bit surprised at how positive the reaction is, I reckon when you take the opposition into account they played better in all of their warm ups. Miles ahead of anything they showed in 2014 though so maybe that's the bar people are using.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I definitely have Slovakia and Wales as favourites. Russia almost literally don't have an attack and all of their players are hilariously immobile. They're not even particularly well organised in defence. Couple of supposedly decent players to come back though, so maybe that'll help.

From England's perspective I'm a bit surprised at how positive the reaction is, I reckon when you take the opposition into account they played better in all of their warm ups. Miles ahead of anything they showed in 2014 though so maybe that's the bar people are using.
With four third places going through, a good performance is probably worth more than a scrappy 1-0 in some ways.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I want to explode the myth that Milner is a good solid option to bring on to help sure things up. No he's just ****ing shite.

About a minute before Russia's goal he allowed a player on the right to bring a long ball down, then run down the wing and get a dangerous volleyed cross in. He did the same useless shepherding role for the cross for the goal, just ran along, put the player under no pressure and allowed the cross.

The guy is complete ****ing shite.

Any decision to play him is therefore ****ing shite. Doesn't matter how many minutes he plays. Anything greater than zero is a **** up.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I want to explode the myth that Milner is a good solid option to bring on to help sure things up. No he's just ****ing shite.

About a minute before Russia's goal he allowed a player on the right to bring a long ball down, then run down the wing and get a dangerous volleyed cross in. He did the same useless shepherding role for the cross for the goal, just ran along, put the player under no pressure and allowed the cross.

The guy is complete ****ing shite.

Any decision to play him is therefore ****ing shite. Doesn't matter how many minutes he plays. Anything greater than zero is a **** up.
The list of accomplished managers who both trust and rate him is probably in double figures. Honestly think you know better?
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Winning the group is important though, beat Wales and they should manage that.

I think the reaction is understandable when you compare it to England's standard opening game performance, second half was not nearly as good but there was proper football going on.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The list of accomplished managers who both trust and rate him is probably in double figures. Honestly think you know better?
At full strength he was a sub at best for Man City. At Liverpool he's an ordinary player in an ordinary team.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
At full strength he was a sub at best for Man City. At Liverpool he's an ordinary player in an ordinary team.
Sub at best (which ignores his versatility) in two premier league winning teams

Not exactly the same as absolute shite is it

How many England managers have picked him?

Milner is what he is and id never call him a great. But in recent times he's been trusted by some managers with fair pedigree. Counts for something
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sub at best (which ignores his versatility) in two premier league winning teams

Not exactly the same as absolute shite is it

How many England managers have picked him?

Milner is what he is and id never call him a great. But in recent times he's been trusted by some managers with fair pedigree. Counts for something
By England standards he is absolute shite. His technical inability is magnified at this level. His headless chickenry can compensate more at high tempo club level.

His 'versatility' allowed Russia to get uncontested crosses in on both wings. Being shite in two different positions is certainly versatile.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Truth is, I don't think the substitutions were bad, Sterling was awful, and Milner offered a defensive winger option with the experience and maturity to see a game out. Wilshire was a fair swap for Rooney, someone who can drop deep in midfield if needed, and run and harass the Russians as required. I'd have swapped a poor Kane out for Vardy to run the Russian defence, but apart from that, I didn't disagree with any of the changes when they were made. The issue was the defence losing focus at the end. Cahill and Smalling should have been using the Russian corner as the time to gee up those around them, remind them to keep focused for the last 2 minutes. Likewise they should have known the ball would be coming back in high to them, and to let Rose get caught in a big v small battle was lazy. The goal was England failing to do basic defending late on, and not really down to Hodgson IMO.
No issue with the Wilshere sub other than the timing.

My point is that you should be looking to use all 3 subs, Vardy not getting a minute was nonsense.

The problem I have with the Milner sub is its negativity, it just sends the message 'lads, we're fine with the 1-0', England noticeably sat off in the final 10 minutes and stopped doing what they'd done so well up until then. I also don't buy Milner as a sound defensive option when it was Milner that was easily beaten before the cross came in for the equaliser.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
From England's perspective I'm a bit surprised at how positive the reaction is, I reckon when you take the opposition into account they played better in all of their warm ups. Miles ahead of anything they showed in 2014 though so maybe that's the bar people are using.
I think it's probably past time people put a lid on rating England due to performances in warm ups and qualifying
 

vogue

International Vice-Captain
Interesting reading everyone's opinions on last nights game... What players should be starting against Wales ? And why?
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Same again for me but he should certainly be more willing to bring on Vardy if Kane is not having a great game.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Hold the phone, Scaly doesn't rate Milner? First I've heard of it.
tbf he has a point about not tracking the Russian who crossed the ball for their equaliser. Just dire from someone who had only been on the pitch for 10 minutes. If nothing else, he should have had the legs to close him down properly.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Isn't Milner like 31? Surely that's too old to be a defensive winger. I know Kuyt did it for Holland in 2014 but he was always far better at it than Milner ever was.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Wilshere was fine when he came on (and god knows I'm not a fan), the issue was leaving Sterling on too long and not replacing him with Vardy.
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Winning the group is important though, beat Wales and they should manage that.

I think the reaction is understandable when you compare it to England's standard opening game performance, second half was not nearly as good but there was proper football going on.
Doesn't matter that much if we win the group, think because of the ridiculous nature of so many going through, we won't get a first-placer in another group if we finish 1st and 2nd.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would likely get a better team in the quater-finals though. probably France. Win the group and you get something like Portugal or Italy.

Yes I am thinking ridiculously far ahead and making loads of assumptions.

Really though it is about not letting Wales win the group.
 

Top