*Official* English Football Season 2007-08

[Matteh]

Smack it along the ground, there's a 6 foot+ barrier of goalkeeper on the ground saving it.

 

[grecian]

I thought it was common knowledge, that high or low was the way to take a pen. In-between is a no-no.

 

[cpr]

Smack it along the ground, there's a 6 foot+ barrier of goalkeeper on the ground saving it.

Yes, but a ball hit at only 60mph arrives at the goal within half a second. Takes quick reaction to get your whole body from upright to completely on the ground in that time, even tougher if the balls in the corner. In the air means the body doesnt have to get all the way down, meaning its more likely to be in position when the ball reaches the line.

 

[Matteh]

Yes, but a ball hit at only 60mph arrives at the goal within half a second. Takes quick reaction to get your whole body from upright to completely on the ground in that time, even tougher if the balls in the corner. In the air means the body doesnt have to get all the way down, meaning its more likely to be in position when the ball reaches the line.

It's not a reaction as such though, you've decided you're diving one way or the other before the ball's been kicked.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I thought it was common knowledge, that high or low was the way to take a pen. In-between is a no-no.

Indeed, some extremely illogical thinking here, surely if its on the ground, the keeper has to dive 90 degrees, if its in the air, he doesn't. And if it's top corner, then it's simply out of his reach.

 

[Matteh]

Yeah it's crude. But jeez look at that space in the air. Shearer's special, straight down the middle.

Euro 96, everyone but Southgate hit high penalties.

 

[cpr]

Cant move too quick though, kicker could change his mind, or shimmy

Even if your decided, still takes very quick reactions to get down to em

Actually remember Peter Shilton never moved till after the ball was struck, then made his choice. Makes a crackin save that, also makes it even harder to beat the Germans in a penalty shoot out mind......

 

[aussie]

although that team you have picked there is better than any of the other ridiculous incarnations the rest of the argument doesnt stand up to any examination.... i cant be arsed to wade through all the drivel you have laid out about 442 not working....

No its not drivel, its a perfectly legitimate reasoning on why the 4-4-2 formation for England has its problems even though i'd be inclined to agree its the best formation for England once all are fit & playing well.

The problem with the idea you have listed is that england dont have a decent holding midfielder (barring hargreaves perhaps), neither do they have a decent play maker, which is why 442 IS the best option available.

Although i know for the majority of his career except for the WC & his few games for England since then i don't think one can question Hargreaves credentials as top-class holding mid-fielder TBH, what fault could you find in his game?. The fact that he could have held on to a first team place at Bayern Munich all those years & have gotten so much good reviews by the players their & Bayern to give United such a hard time to let him go until they where sure they could match the spending power of the other big european clubs to replace him must mean something. AFAIC once fit he is England's most important component in the centre of the park, its unfortunate that it took us here in England to realise what a quality player he was. Sven always knew but he wasted him..

Although he may not have had played that role alot i don't see why Rooney won't make a good play-maker either. His game ATS of his career is very similar to Raul at his best, he is quick, strong, has a good passing game, and can score from anywhere and if he plays that role it would be hard for oppostion coaches to try & assign men to mark him especially when he has to worry with Owen & Heskey/Ashton infront of him.

the reason England cant play a system like AC Milan, Brazil or Bremen is because there arent any players up to playing in such a system.

I didn't mention Brazil but whatever. But when you say the reason England can't play a system like some of the teams i mentioned is because the players are not up to it what do mean exactly? Are you saying because it not a common formation in the English game (especially with the big 4) or that the player won't be used to it or because they just can't play it?.

The best side available to England at full strength is...

Kirkland

Richards
Ferdinand
Terry
Cole

J.Cole
Gerrard
Hargreaves
Beckham

Heskey/Ashton
Rooney.

Agreed, except for Kirkland. His career has been meesed up unfortunately with all the injury woes. He may still be the most talented goalie in the country but he needs to get to better club which will entail him being injury free for a while and relive some of those performances from his liverpool days for him to get a England call-up again. But he's young enough to still to redeem himself and get a good career for England.

ATM though, if England do manage to qualify for Euro 08 once James keeps playing well for Pompey i'd let him start. If not i'd start grooming Carson especially or Foster for 2010.

The reason no more adventurous formations have been tried, is for the simple reason, that any coach worth their salt, can see that they simply would not work.

Disagree, and this is where a more tactical sound coach would have seen differently with England especially in past tournaments when they had big problems with that formation but forced players to play out of position or refused to drop players who were out of form but just to stick with that formation and make things even worst i.e Euro 2004 where we had no left-sided player & we put Scholes out their & when Beckham had his worst tournament ever he still played every game and in World Cup when Becks & Lamps also was having a bad run but were not dropped.

Another big reason of why i would like England to play 4-3-2-1 is because after seeing time & time again England starting well in a game then as the game progresses the oppostion mid-field usually getting the better of us thus England defend deep and concede stupidly and frustratingly. England need to start dominating in mid-field and learn to move the ball up from mid-field with pace. Even though 4-4-2 may the best formation available given the inept tactical ability of McClaren & Sven (although i think Sven is a good coach & had a good record after building a solid base from the 2002 WC unfortunately he made alot of mistakes as coach) for some reason except for the friendly againts Argentina before the WC, the WC game vs Sweden & probably very few other times have England played with the fluency that they should play given that most of our players play in some of the best clubs England & Europe where they are used to playing at high-tempo. Its always a slow build up from the back, alot of long balls, an Owen poach/wonder-goal or a Beckham Free-kick and England win (although Lamps & Wazza have had their moments).

 

[sledger]

Although he may not have had played that role alot i don't see why Rooney won't make a good play-maker either. His game ATS of his career is very similar to Raul at his best, he is quick, strong, has a good passing game, and can score from anywhere and if he plays that role it would be hard for oppostion coaches to try & assign men to mark him especially when he has to worry with Owen & Heskey/Ashton infront of him.

The rest of your post was fine and raised a decent argument, but to call Raul playermaker is just nonsense, he is nothing of the sort, and neither is rooney, neither can pass the ball well enough, simple as, and I expect most people on here would agree with me. I dont think anyone would say that his performances since dropping into midfield have been very good.

 

[Craig]

I find it funny how in how similar the England cricket and football team, in the 70's, 80,'s and the most part of the 90's, England had world class 'keepers (obviously goalies and wicketkeepers) in each sport and now they are dire in both codes.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah it's crude. But jeez look at that space in the air. Shearer's special, straight down the middle.

Euro 96, everyone but Southgate hit high penalties.

You missed the bit the keeper covers if he just stands up...

A well struck (ie not Rooney's) low penalty doesn't even have to be that near the post to go in, because the keeper cannot get down quick enough.

 

[Johnners]

I'd say low penalites would be the hardest to save if struck well, it's a lot harder to get down at full stretch imo.

 

[Matteh]

You missed the bit the keeper covers if he just stands up...

A well struck (ie not Rooney's) low penalty doesn't even have to be that near the post to go in, because the keeper cannot get down quick enough.

Keeper's basically don't though. That's why those people had success with the ****y little chip down the middle.

 

[sledger]

Keeper's basically don't though. That's why those people had success with the ****y little chip down the middle.

in fairness, you dont really see many penalties chipped down the middle, theyre usually blasted down, and often saved by the keepers trailing leg.

 

[cpr]

I dont argue with the effectiveness of hitting them high as Matteh's saying. But its a harder skill to master. Firstly the balls struck with the top of the foot, not the side (well, if your going for placement over power, you'll hit it in the big toe region). Less accurate striking it that way, so the chance of putting it wide or at the keeper increases. Also the elevation has to be controlled. Not enough is an easy parry, too much goes over.

If you can do it, then by all means, its a better penalty. Tbh only really Shearer and Le Tissier could do it regularly (and the mighty Denis Irwin). Remember Van Nistelrooy always put them right in the corner, perfect accuracy, but when he went high never scored. Likewise other star strikers such as Henry and Cantona preferred the accuracy of the corner over the height.

Dwight Yorke was the only one with the testicles to go for the chip penalty more than once

 

[Matteh]

in fairness, you dont really see many penalties chipped down the middle, theyre usually blasted down, and often saved by the keepers trailing leg.

Indeed, hence why the red area includes a part for that.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Indeed, hence why the red area includes a part for that.

But the red area should also be lessened in the bottom corners simply because if it is leathered the keeper doesn't have the time to get down there.

If you're going to go high, it has to be very high, about a metre off the ground means that if the keeper goes the right way it's saved.

 

[Matteh]

But the red area should also be lessened in the bottom corners simply because if it is leathered the keeper doesn't have the time to get down there.

If you're going to go high, it has to be very high, about a metre off the ground means that if the keeper goes the right way it's saved.

If anything, when it is leathered, there should be a gap where the shoulder would land. Hand gets down first, then the rest of the arm.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If anything, when it is leathered, there should be a gap where the shoulder would land. Hand gets down first, then the rest of the arm.

That is true, the hand does go down before the rest of the arm, however if it is leathered then neither the hand or the arm gets down in time.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Arsenal playing some beautiful stuff, but my Slavia Prague are average.