Did the same against France tooAustralia generally play within their limitations and compete well. That’s what makes the second goal so annoying as fannying around in their own box is not a strength of theirs.
Did the same against France tooAustralia generally play within their limitations and compete well. That’s what makes the second goal so annoying as fannying around in their own box is not a strength of theirs.
The piss yellow is certainly an issue, especially when the fans are lining up with what appears to be suspiciously filled balloons.I reckon the other factor is that the vintage Brazilian teams wore a slightly darker shade of yellow tops - pale gold rather than yellow. These things matter, of course.
That game was so much fun, it's the first game I think of when I think of that tournament. Especially the ridiculous Edmilson goal.Yeah they had a group game against Costa Rica in 2002 they won 5-2 from memory that was just a brilliant game of football, but Costa Rica's goals were the sort of goals that you can't be conceding if you want to win a tournament.
Walker has played against Mbappe directly 4 times in the last two seasons and done it very well. Criminally underrated player.If ever an opponent justified playing Trippier ahead of Walker on the right side of a back five, this is it. But I don't know whether he will actually. All three of yesterday's midfield look undropable, albeit for differing reasons.
Tbf I read it to mean both Tripper at wing back and Walker right of the three.Walker has played against Mbappe directly 4 times in the last two seasons and done it very well. Criminally underrated player.
If he was fully matchfit I'd be less worried but he's looked (understandably) rusty these past two games. Looking shaky vs Senegal isn't the most auspicious sign ahead of the France game. Hopefully the games under his belt will help...Walker has played against Mbappe directly 4 times in the last two seasons and done it very well. Criminally underrated player.
I'd not considered that. I suppose you drop Hendo for that, then.Tbf I read it to mean both Tripper at wing back and Walker right of the three.
While I think sitting back and absorbing pressure to spring a counter (and deny space in behind to Mbappe) is the correct move tactically I don't like a back 5 either. I think it concedes too much and I'm not actually convinced too much by France's midfield. I think 3 in the middle rather than 3 CBs is the way to go.I'd not considered that. I suppose you drop Hendo for that, then.
Don't personally like England with a back 5 tbh. Would rather they played Phillips over Hendo and use the double pivot as a makeshift extra CB.
Did you really need that many words to say "I agree"?While I think sitting back and absorbing pressure to spring a counter (and deny space in behind to Mbappe) is the correct move tactically I don't like a back 5 either. I think it concedes too much and I'm not actually convinced too much by France's midfield. I think 3 in the middle rather than 3 CBs is the way to go.
I disagreeDid you really need that many words to say "I agree"?
Southgate brought in the back 5 as a pragmatic system for 2018 when we had a much more limited squad. Because we did well in that tournament Southgate keeps going back to it against strong sides.England's major weakness under Southgate is that they go through long stretches of play where the opponent completely dominates possession and they can't get out. Playing a back 5 makes that worse.
Yeah I agree. It stopped making sense for England's squad a long time ago, and they've looked much better this tournament for having stuck with a back 4. It's not that it gives them a big tactical edge, it just gets more of their quality players on the pitch in their best positions.Southgate brought in the back 5 as a pragmatic system for 2018 when we had a much more limited squad. Because we did well in that tournament Southgate keeps going back to it against strong sides.
Our squad now is orders of magnitude better in terms of attacking talent. Definitely no need to revert to 5 at the back this time. It'd be undermining our strengths rather than covering for our weaknesses.
YesDid you really need that many words to say "I agree"?