Group B: England, Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago, Sweden

[marc71178]

The point is that Trinidad and Tobago shouldn't have held teams ranked as highly as Sweden and England scoreless for about 3 hours of World Cup football. They did a sensational job to do so, and to say that the tactics were defensive because the team is not capable of doing anything other than defending is insulting and plain incorrect.

No, I said that the tactics were based all about defending, which is precisely what they were - fair play to them, they recognised that the best way to approach the game was in that way.

At no point did I say that the team were incapable of anything else.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No, I said that the tactics were based all about defending, which is precisely what they were - fair play to them, they recognised that the best way to approach the game was in that way.

At no point did I say that the team were incapable of anything else.

Look at the first post I made. I was defending a point against Matteh.

Granted, he said the team "looked" incapable, but still, it could have been stated with more tact.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How about we stuff about 6 or 7 past the Swedes for ya so you only need the one

The fact that you were playing us was the only thing preventing me wanting you to advance as we never finish above Sweden. But I'm now sure we will, and I hope to God you lot go through

I suspect that we'd still need 2, as we would be level on points and goal difference with Sweden if we beat Paraguay 1-0. Not sure what the ruling is from there, but I gather it'd be Sweden to go through.

 

[GIMH]

I suspect that we'd still need 2, as we would be level on points and goal difference with Sweden if we beat Paraguay 1-0. Not sure what the ruling is from there, but I gather it'd be Sweden to go through.

If we beat Sweden 6 or 7-0, a victory will give you a better goal difference than them surely?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If we beat Sweden 6 or 7-0, a victory will give you a better goal difference than them surely?

Currently Sweden has +1 and T&T is -2. So regardless of how many England score against Sweden, T&T still needs at least mefinks.

 

[superkingdave]

Currently Sweden has +1 and T&T is -2. So regardless of how many England score against Sweden, T&T still needs at least mefinks.

england 3 Sweden 0
T&T 1 Paraguay 0


->T&T -1, Sweden -2

...

 

[GIMH]

Currently Sweden has +1 and T&T is -2. So regardless of how many England score against Sweden, T&T still needs at least mefinks.

No coz if we score 6 against Sweden they go onto -5

I'm not saying we will mind you!!

 

[The Baconator]

I suspect that we'd still need 2, as we would be level on points and goal difference with Sweden if we beat Paraguay 1-0. Not sure what the ruling is from there, but I gather it'd be Sweden to go through.

If Trinidad beat Paraguay 1-0 and we beat Sweden 2-0 I think things'll be exactly the same goal wise, and seeing as T&T drew with Sweden I think they'd draw lots.

 

[aussie]

doesn't really bother we what happens in the Trinidad vs Paraguay game, all thats important is that England defeat Sweden & top the group, since it will give England a very good path in the knockout stages.

 

[Craig]

I don't think that would work - his crossing is far too important.

The thing to remember is, England won't come across any other sides who are seemingly only set up to not concede - against a team with a modicum of attacking intention and the likes of Owen come into the game far more.

So what was the who logic in playing 4-5-1 with Beckham in the middle with Wright-Phillips on the right during qualifying?

It got put to me since Gerrard and Lampard don't always complement each other in the middle of the England midfield, since Lampard is naturally attacking, and Gerrard likes to get forward as well, so two attacking midfielders don't really work well together. That way they can both get forward, but in different positions.

As for Theo Walcott, if possible I think he should be given a proper go off the bench, he was picked as an 'impact' player or his gamble selection, so you may as well use it or it will look like a waste of time IMO when you could have taken Jermain Defoe or somebody else instead. I mean he (Eriksson) thought Walcott was good enough to be picked, so he may as well live by his sword (and I know some members backed it and a few big name players from FC Barcelona agreed so to).

 

[marc71178]

So what was the who logic in playing 4-5-1 with Beckham in the middle with Wright-Phillips on the right during qualifying?

I think the logic was that Beckham could hit both wings from there and quickly get England attacking.

It fell down because SWP is pure tat.

 

[TT Boy]

According to the wireless, Sven has said Rooney will start against Sweden.

 

[Craig]

I think the logic was that Beckham could hit both wings from there and quickly get England attacking.

It fell down because SWP is pure tat.

Couldn't that work with Gerrard on the right though, if you took the view that Gerrard is a better winger then Wright-Phillips, or if Lennon was on?

Personally he should give Bridge, and possibily Carrick or somebody a game at some point. They might need them if a injury happens to a certain area the foot...

 

[marc71178]

Well the Sweden game will see a couple of changes, I think Gerrard is being rested.

Unfortunately that means Canada's finest is expected to start.

 

[GIMH]

Maybe with us already through, Sven wants us to just sneak a draw, thus having us top the group and Sweden qualify in second

 

[aussie]

England cannot win with a 4-4-2

Saw this little piece on BBC, and i think its a fair point to be honest, after all i did suggest this type of formation before..

England's formation:
You have to pick teams to win in the knock-out stages. England will never win the World Cup playing with a 4-4-2 formation.
As good as Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are, if they come up against three central midfielders the ball will be simply passed around them.

Argentina do this brilliantly and I think a 3-5-2 with a deeper Owen Hargreaves might best suit England.

Denmark destroyed us this way in the friendly. Claus Jensen played behind the front two and tore us to bits. And they're not even at the World Cup. It is a warning.

 

[Matteh]

Saw this little piece on BBC, and i think its a fair point to be honest, after all i did suggest this type of formation before..

England's formation:
You have to pick teams to win in the knock-out stages. England will never win the World Cup playing with a 4-4-2 formation.
As good as Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are, if they come up against three central midfielders the ball will be simply passed around them.

Argentina do this brilliantly and I think a 3-5-2 with a deeper Michael Carrick might best suit England.

Denmark destroyed us this way in the friendly. Claus Jensen played behind the front two and tore us to bits. And they're not even at the World Cup. It is a warning.

The BBC made a typo....

 

[Scaly piscine]

Saw this little piece on BBC, and i think its a fair point to be honest, after all i did suggest this type of formation before..

England's formation:
You have to pick teams to win in the knock-out stages. England will never win the World Cup playing with a 4-4-2 formation.
As good as Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are, if they come up against three central midfielders the ball will be simply passed around them.

Argentina do this brilliantly and I think a 3-5-2 with a deeper Owen Hargreaves might best suit England.

Denmark destroyed us this way in the friendly. Claus Jensen played behind the front two and tore us to bits. And they're not even at the World Cup. It is a warning.

Don't think so, if 4-4-2 is so easy to counter then how come most club teams in Europe play it?

The formation itself doesn't really matter, it's how England play. Fact remains England play their best when they're playing 4-4-2, if they play better than their opponents they'll likely win - it's not chess.

 

[aussie]

The BBC made a typo....

haha

 

[roseboy64]

Don't think so, if 4-4-2 is so easy to counter then how come most club teams in Europe play it?

The formation itself doesn't really matter, it's how England play. Fact remains England play their best when they're playing 4-4-2, if they play better than their opponents they'll likely win - it's not chess.

Yeah just checkers.