England V Tunisia 1900 BST BBC1

[westy8chimp]

The England performance was ok... What brings the worst out of us tony... In my case its listening to the commentary and pundits. Keown who i usually like... 'this system is great we are playing the best of any team yet and a lot of the other nations will be worrying now'... A few mins after Tunisia score... 'you have to question the system theres just not enough movement'. 

Kane scores two really grubby goals and the post match pundits use those goals to put Kane in Ronaldos bracket. Literally no movement or skill involved as its a set piece...bad marking decent balls in and well attacked by the England centre halves the rest is luck of the bounce... Happened to pinball right onto Kane a yard out. Rest of thd game he couldnt keep up with Sterling and Lingard so barely touched the ball let alone get in the penalty area. 

Yeh it was an ok performance and we got a result... Think we'd all enjoy it more if the punditry just called it as it was tho

[bestbrother]

we were always going to beat tunisia and panama. we just made a meal of it 2nd half.

tunisia offered nothing and 2-1 flatters them

[Pukey]

11 minutes ago, Astafjevs said:

I'd go as far to say that a win against Panama definitely puts England through. Particularly if it's a big one

Depends on how Tunisia do, if they beat Belgium then it's us on 6 with them two on 3, so we could potentially lose to Belgium, Tunisia beat Panama comfortably, and go out on goal difference to both Belgium and Tunisia.

I don't think this is likely mind you, and we'd know the result of Belgium vs Tunisia going in.

[cms186]

18 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

The England performance was ok... What brings the worst out of us tony... In my case its listening to the commentary and pundits. Keown who i usually like... 'this system is great we are playing the best of any team yet and a lot of the other nations will be worrying now'... A few mins after Tunisia score... 'you have to question the system theres just not enough movement'. 

Kane scores two really grubby goals and the post match pundits use those goals to put Kane in Ronaldos bracket. Literally no movement or skill involved as its a set piece...bad marking decent balls in and well attacked by the England centre halves the rest is luck of the bounce... Happened to pinball right onto Kane a yard out. Rest of thd game he couldnt keep up with Sterling and Lingard so barely touched the ball let alone get in the penalty area. 

Yeh it was an ok performance and we got a result... Think we'd all enjoy it more if the punditry just called it as it was tho

weren't 2 of Ronaldos goals from set pieces (and the other a major GK blunder) rather than any skill from ronaldo? Also, i took the mention of kane wrt Ronaldo as purely a mention of the scoring charts, rather than comparing then as players

 

Also, if you dont enjoy the punditry, theres an option to change the Audio source via the red button i think (or just mute them :D)

[rastaman219]

2 hours ago, Redshift said:

I think I would rather switch Rashford for Ali than Sterling.

No chance, our whole problem that game was we could only run it directly in the midfield as we had Alli, Sterling and Lingard, so Kane was having to track back to win the ball back so he could play with the ball as them 3 didn't look to pass down the middle. We only started to open it up again when Loftus Cheek came on as he'd look up to play the ball.

[scott MUFC]

all Sterling did was run into defenders, and do silly backheels to nobody.

[Boltman]

3 hours ago, RTHerringbone said:

Tomorrow seems like a bit of a come down.

 

Well from a neutral perspective, I'm looking forward to seeing Colombia v's Japan, whether Senegal are any better than the absolute dross from the other African teams so far, and the atmosphere for Russia will be spectacular after the win the other night. I suppose for anyone who has been anticipating England's first match it'll seem so, but I don't see how those three matches are any less interesting than seeing Belgium, England, or Sweden play today.

[samba23]

I can't believe I've just read 17 pages of this thread and there has been almost no discourse on the formation. I'm not against a back 3 at all but the formation overall made zero sense to me. Many years ago I actually coached a youth team and changed our formation from 4-5-1/4-3-3 to 3-5-2 for two simple reasons. We were terrible in defence and we were terrible in attack. Playing an extra central defender, and making a back 5 helped give extra protection and cover for the two centre backs, made it harder for the opposition to play through balls and had more players defending crosses. Playing 4-5-1 left our striker too isolated so playing with two strikers gave us more presence up front and enabled us to hold the ball up better when we went direct. Playing 3-5-2 also allowed us to continue with 3 central midfielders and avoid the possibility of being overrun in central midfield if we played 4-4-2.

Tl;dr 3-5-2 gives better numbers in defence and attack and keeps numbers in central midfield vs 4-5-1/4-3-3.

So what has this got to do with England's formation? We had 5 defenders when defending and looked solid for the most part. Kane always had someone up front with him and was never isolated. So where's the problem? We didn't play with 3 central midfielders. Not really. Not at all. The central midfield was the exact same problem we had in 2016 with Rooney and Alli playing in midfield in front of Dier as the pivot. Alli is a fine player, as an attacker. He plays as a support striker for Spurs. I've almost never seen him play in the midfield two for Spurs. His instinct is to always make forward runs and to be in the box for crosses. Lingard too is not a central midfielder. Never played there for Man Utd.

The current word in vogue for England is pivot. Who will play the pivot position? Henderson or Dier? But it's not the pivot that's the problem. It's that there's no midfielder within 20 yards of Henderson when the defence has the ball. Think back, how many times did Lingard or Alli drop deep to receive a pass from a defender? It was like the team had been told that they had to pass through the pivot exclusively. So we passed sideways across the defence, forwards to Henderson, who had no supporting midfielder to pass to because Alli and Lingard were up front making a front 4, so then back to the defence and if we were lucky, maybe getting a full back in space to dribble the ball forward into attack. Because for damn sure we weren't going to pass the ball through central midfield.

Some photographic evidence to prove my point.

The defensive shape was generally not bad. The back 5 is in a good line and the spacings are fine between each player. More significantly there's a good shape and compactness to the midfield 3. Henderson is slightly deeper but Lingard and Alli are disciplined in their positioning, staying close to Henderson.

Now look at the shape when our defenders have possession. In particular how much distance is between Henderson and the other two. Both Lingard and Alli are much closer to the forwards than Henderson. In this example, Alli needs to made a move 10 yards towards Maguire to be able to receive a pass. 

However, Alli's tendency is to always make forward runs. In this separate example he has made a forward run into the channel from a central position and is now England's furthest player forward. This is a good run in his role at Spurs but the opposite of what he needs to do as a central midfielder for England.

Another example. This time the LB is forward and England effectively have 5 forwards and only 1 midfielder. Making it impossible to pass the ball "through the thirds". Notice that Tunisia have a line of 3 players in the central midfield area vs just Henderson. 1v3 is not how you want to play in central midfield but England did so time and time again.

But hang on a second, England actually created some good chances so it can't have been that bad? Well here's the beginning of the move that led to England's first chance. Again, 4 forwards, no-one near Henderson. However, in this move when the ball is played to Henderson he plays an excellent first-time pass into the right channel, where Alli has  (surprise, surprise) made a forward run. This move, although excellent, is not typically how you would want to play a possession based game.

Finally, back to the concept of the pivot. If we take the best midfield 3 of this generation (Busquets-Xavi-Iniesta) the way England played was more akin to playing Busquets-Alexis-Pedro.

 

[JD nawrat]

Good post @samba23 

I agree with everything you've said except for Kane not being in isolation. I said it earlier in the thread somewhere about the 60th minute I believe - Kane was not showing for the ball at all, but he was also not making any runs in the channels or in behind. This meant that Sterling had nothing to play off of, it was like having a statue up top. What Sterling should have done then would be to drop deep, but even when Rashford came on he didn't drop deep, so it leads me to think Southgate wants both Strikers playing among the opposition defenders, and not dropping into the midfield at all.

Totally fine idea if you have a midfield controlling the game but, like you said, there was no midfield presence. Basically 4 forwards, 1 Mid and 5 Defs. 

I would like to see England playing with both Dier and Henderson in CM, with Sterling/Lingard and Rashford/Alli playing around Kane, ideally in a 3421 with Kane the focal, but there can be arguments made to have Alli as a CAM and have two Strikers.

But if England want to go the route of two out and out strikers (waste of Sterling's talents) they'd be better starting Vardy and Kane I think. Or Rashford Kane. Certainly not Sterling Kane. 

So if Sterling is to fit in, it should be in the 3421 just off of Kane as an AM, alongside Alli.

It's very interesting to see what changes will be made. I don't think Sterling, Alli or Lingard made a particularly strong case for being reselected, but then I think all three men were used incorrectly (Sterling not a #9, Alli and Lingard not CMs). 

[Heartwork]

tl;dr

[Heartwork]

6 hours ago, Pukey said:

Enjoying the "ENGLAND MUST DO BETTER" as though a whole boat load of top nations haven't just had very average performances.

First half was very good, created plenty of chances. Finish those and we cruise. The tempo definitely dropped second half but even then there was changes to try and give us the upperhand such as the pushing forward of the CBs. RLC should have come on a bit sooner but other than that I don't have a massive issue with the way the game was managed. Tunisia clearly changed as well to play for the draw after half time which makes things difficult and it wasn't like Iceland where it was just "lol throw strikers on and hope for the best"

And then this is ignoring the absolutely appalling VAR not giving us at least 2 blatant penalties. Second half should have been better but we've only got Panama to go who'll play that way against us and they don't seem as competent as Tunisia.

I don't think the VAR refs have the power to force the referee on the pitch to change his mind, it's plausible that they had told him he might want to take a look at the decisions again but the referee was too arrogant to admit fault. He seemed pretty determined that he was right in every decision and didn't refer to the VAR once that I can recall.

Also agree with the others in here praising Loftus-Cheek. That loan to Palace was a great move for him. Would be great if he can stay, but this tournament might add a few too many zeros to his price tag for Palace to afford.

[RTHerringbone]

Sterling has scored twice in 39 internationals. I like him as a player but that's a woeful return.

Will be interesting to see if Young and Sterling start against Panama. I'd start RLC ahead of Alli if there are any doubts at all about his fitness.

[Weezer]

9 hours ago, EnterUsernameHere said:

I think Senegal will surprise a lot of people. They look like Africa's best chance in years to finally do well in a world cup. Mané hat trick 

Not got much to live up to have they? This tournament hasn’t exactly been a glowing reference for African football, they’ve all been terrible so far. A 48 team World Cup is going to throw up some shocking matchups.

[pearcey_90]

Really impressed and delighted how we played the first 20, high press, perfect. Repeat that in every single game and we’ll do well as not one team at this tournament will enjoy that press, just got to make sure we score 1/2 when in that phase because the better sides when we rest for a period and they ping it around will likely create a chance or two unlike Tunisia.

Bossed the game from the word go. Only Tunisia, but great to see we offered them nothing expect the penalty and another game and the VAR guys actually watching the game in the truck instead of Coronation Street and we’d have two pens and Lingard shooting boots another couple more goals. I’d change Alli for someone and Rose for young next game.

[Bigwig]

I wasn’t too fussed about Shelvey not getting called up as there’s less chance of him getting injured but I couldn’t help but think he would have been a good option last night. 

Even if he didn’t fare much better in midfield he can at least take a free kick and corner.  

[Cedrik]

Thought England started really well yesterday, were a bit messy with the chances though. Could have been 3-0 up inside fifteen minutes.  After the 1-1 from Tunisia, which was a clear penalty imo, love all the fuss about it though , they started to become a bit more tense in their play for some reason which was a pity. Thought that England definitely deserved the win which they rightfully got in the end. Of course they were not great or something like that, but so far no country was, well maybe Mexico. 

Felt RLC had a very good match when he came in, was more impressive than Dele Alli whole game. 

England can now easily beat Panama and they are qualified for the round of 16. Hopefully that will give them some calmness for the match with Belgium to decide who will win the group. Feel Belgium perhaps has a bit more quality, but England can definitely win. 

 

[Razzler]

We don't have that playmaker cause that role is generally outsourced in the Premier League. Shelvey being the highest up Englishman on the list does not make me want to pick him. We need to use what we do have, our pace for starters. Was great at the beginning, causing all sorts of problems but lacking of cutting edge in front of goal, particularly Lingard.

I didn't think it was a pen, soft at best but he reviewed it and still awarded it though, it was the easy decision, Walker forced him into making a decision, it was needless. Tunisia pretty much offered nothing, they deserved nothing. Under rated header from Kane at the end there, always good for a striker to score at the start of a tournament.

We gifted them that goal and gave them something to cling to otherwise it would have been a different game, they didn't seem a threat outside of that so not sure how they'd have got back into the game.

I thought we were doing this 'playing out from the back' these days? Fair few long balls, even early on. I thought Rashford and RLC improved things when they came on, it's good to let Sterling and Alli know that no one is guaranteed a spot, I expect them both to start again but notice is served. I thought I noticed a semi-sulk from Alli as he went off before Southgate grabbed him but maybe reading too much into it.

We always make things difficult but we deserved the win and glad we kept probing even when it seemed some of the zip had left the game. a team sitting back will make it difficult though, Rashford showed more willingness to run at them though, which I think you need when a team sits back like that.

I can't see them troubling Belgium much and Panama didn't look all that but it'll be another game where we need to break someone down, they seemed to come out a lot more than Tunisia though

[skybluedave]

Urgh what a stressful game. I thought the ref was proper bad. Never a pen. We should have had a 2 pens. I hate blaming refs but he was so bad. 

1st half good. 2nd half not so good. But we showed character and kept going. The subs improved things but I think we should stick with the team that worked so well at the start. Except Young out for Rose probably. Though Young was average and I want a left footer there. 

[sc91]

Fantastic post @samba23.

The overall issue as mentioned though, I believe that the 'forward' that links the attack is key. Not to intentionally bring club football into it but as a supporter of a side that has employed a much similar tactic to great success over the previous season, I believe it has some relevance.

The major success is the ability of the 'front 3' to drop into the midfield to commit runners and open up space on the flanks. The two wingbacks are key to exploiting and unlocking a defense. It's a large reason with the tactic to not actually didn't run with what is a stereotypical 'out and out striker' but more an individual that is comfortable in dropping into the midfield to provide the option and create the space for the playmaker to essentially do his work and maintain play.

Arguably though a huge part of it, is having players comfortable with the ball. With ourselves we moved a midfielder back into one of the back three to have the vision to pass out, retain possession and keep the move flowing and then alongside the main playmaker we also had another individual who himself, was extremely comfortable with the ball and also able to pick out passes with ease (arguably playing as CB for Morocco currently, doing the same role).

Big question is, who among the England ranks is able to do so. Do England have players that are comfortable filling such roles? I'd have arguably taken Shelvey simply because of his ability to pass and cycle the ball, especially if we are employing this tactic.

However, last night, against opposition that we more than happy to sit, you often do not see the best of the tactic. Against opponents who will set out to play against you, your bigger teams say, the tactic I believe will be far more effective as a solid midfield/defense will then enable a quick spring to turn defense into attack and counter with ease. Often the matches where we won emphatically in the season past were when teams actually didn't stick ten men behind the ball but had a go and attacked.

[The_jagster]

Loftus-Cheek impressed me in his short time on the pitch, whereas Rashford 'looked threatening' without actually doing anything. Tbh Rashford for me is like Sterling for Baptista_8 (  ) I don't get what everyone else sees in him. He can run but if he could bring the ball with him past the defender he'd be a lot better.

I liked Maguire coming out from the back but a bit like Lingard, it's a worry that he merits being in the team because it means we aren't really producing good enough players. Lingard missing that volley was absolutely no surprise.

[Pedwar Pump]

We looked good in the opening 20 because Tunisia were nervous, pushed a bit higher up and lacked a bit of cohesion. When our pacey players have room they do look good. Sadly once an opponents sits back Sterling and Lingard look a bit headless and panicky and there's zero penetration. Kane didn't look like he fitted in the first 20 either, ball wasn't sticking and he was making poor choices and he was so anonymous in that second half I genuinely thought i'd missed him being subbed, but I don't think any other player we've got would have finished that chance at the death as well or with as much composure as he did.

[Astafjevs]

Only.issue I have with that massive post is that, tbh, I dont think England should be playing a possession-based game. I think they're best when they play quick, direct passing. To do that, you need the midfielders taking up positions highlighted in those pictures.

You saw what happened in the second half when England played possession football. Slow, turgid, no ideas. They don't have midfielders who can play that style, so why bother?

Obviously keep the ball if you can because that's much better, but keeping it and probing is not something England can do. Keeping it and trying to get it forward asap is something they can do.

[ryan045]

My player ratings for last night 

XI

Pickford - (6) Didn’t have too much to do. Got a slight hand on the penalty and was calm passing out to the CB’s. Solid performance.

Trippier - (8) One of the best performers last night. Sent in some great corners which lead to the goals. Didn’t look out of place at all. I’m happy with him as the RB moving forwards.

Walker - (6) Gave away a silly pen which I thought was harsh. I liked him driving forward from defence. Can improve.

Stones - (7) Had a solid game. His header led to the first goal. No errors from him

Magiure - (6) A few dodgy backpasses which I will let him off for. A decent performance all round.

Young - (6) Suprised me a bit. I had concerns about him cutting in from LB every attack but he did try & mix things up. Wouldn’t let him take FK’s again though.

Henderson - (7) A good performance from Henderson. Did everything you would want him to do. Thought his passing was great last night.

Alli - (6) Apparently carrying a knock 2nd half so I won’t be too harsh. Needs to improve or I can see him losing his place. I still think he should start the next game.

Lingard - (6) Did almost everything you want from him apart from score. Thought he was unlucky with his chances. Could of had a brace on another day.

Sterling - (5) Needs to improve in an England shirt. I know he can. Would start him again vs Panama, Last chance or Rashford comes in.

Kane - (7) Didn’t have much to do apart from being rugby tackled a few times. Took both his goals well, especially the last one. 

Subs

RLC - (7) Looked a handfull when he came on. Could easily take Alli’s place if he doesn’t step up. Really rate this guy.

Rashford - (6) An improvement on Sterling when he came on. He knows he can do better. Bar the silly dummy to Lingard he was impressive.

Dier - (6) Came on last minutes to shut things down. Can see him featuring against Belgium.

[ham_aka_stam]

Just me that thinks what @samba23 said is semi-intentional?

Southgate has said he's playing to the player's strengths: pace, movement and energy.  I don't think sticking another holding midfielder in is the way to go about it against sides like Tunisia and Panama.  Against Belgium and bigger, maybe.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

I think the plan is when/if we play a team who will boss possession against us, we will play on the counter.

[Wigmore]

24 minutes ago, ryan045 said:

Dier - (6)

The easiest 6 Dier has ever earned  

[ryan045]

5 minutes ago, Wigmore said:

The easiest 6 Dier has ever earned  

He’s lucky I’m in a good mood an made 6 the average. Could of easily been a 5 on another day.

[Razzler]

I am sure he's relieved

[samba23]

27 minutes ago, ham_aka_stam said:

Just me that thinks what @samba23 said is semi-intentional?

Southgate has said he's playing to the player's strengths: pace, movement and energy.  I don't think sticking another holding midfielder in is the way to go about it against sides like Tunisia and Panama.  Against Belgium and bigger, maybe.

It's 100% intentional. Southgate deliberately chose two attacking midfielders/forwards to play in central midfield. The inability to pass through central midfield was obvious throughout the whole game and the two warm up games and yet Southgate had no desire to tell Alli or Lingard to play deeper.

Astafjevs is partly correct. The line up works better if playing more direct. The corner that led to the goal came from a move of Maguire passing direct to Kane, who played a first-time one-two with Sterling. However, this was probably our only good direct pass from defence to Kane/Sterling in the whole match as we always tried to play through Henderson, which was impossible.

It's not about playing with another holding midfielder, it's about playing with another midfielder full stop. If Alli played alongside Henderson rather than 20 yards ahead of him then we would have been able to play out of defence more easily. But that's not Alli's game. It wasn't in 2016 when he played in central midfield, it isn't for Spurs and it won't suddenly change in this tournament.

[Razzler]

Just looking at the Kane wrestling again, the ref was right there looking at it, it's not like he missed it. He saw it and didn't call it, it's not really a VAR thing, not sure he could have had a better view

[Pukey]

1 hour ago, The_jagster said:

Loftus-Cheek impressed me in his short time on the pitch, whereas Rashford 'looked threatening' without actually doing anything. Tbh Rashford for me is like Sterling for Baptista_8 (  ) I don't get what everyone else sees in him. He can run but if he could bring the ball with him past the defender he'd be a lot better.

I liked Maguire coming out from the back but a bit like Lingard, it's a worry that he merits being in the team because it means we aren't really producing good enough players. Lingard missing that volley was absolutely no surprise.

I like Rashford but I agree with you. He did nothing last night yet there'll still be a "PLAY RASHFORD NOT STERLING" bandwagon. I wouldn't complain at all if he does play but he didn't do anything last night to make me think "yeah, he has to play."

1 hour ago, Astafjevs said:

Only.issue I have with that massive post is that, tbh, I dont think England should be playing a possession-based game. I think they're best when they play quick, direct passing. To do that, you need the midfielders taking up positions highlighted in those pictures.

You saw what happened in the second half when England played possession football. Slow, turgid, no ideas. They don't have midfielders who can play that style, so why bother?

Obviously keep the ball if you can because that's much better, but keeping it and probing is not something England can do. Keeping it and trying to get it forward asap is something they can do.

I think this is why we seem a bit better against more quality opponents. When teams play deep we do look a bit clueless but against other teams who'll come at us I think we'll look pretty decent. Think we have a good chance against Belgium.

[Astafjevs]

I think it depends on the team. I know it was only a friendly, but Brazil did exactly that and England had very little in the way of chances or even attacking threat. Was basically England on the edge of their box for 90 mins

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, Astafjevs said:

Only.issue I have with that massive post is that, tbh, I dont think England should be playing a possession-based game. I think they're best when they play quick, direct passing. To do that, you need the midfielders taking up positions highlighted in those pictures.

You saw what happened in the second half when England played possession football. Slow, turgid, no ideas. They don't have midfielders who can play that style, so why bother?

Obviously keep the ball if you can because that's much better, but keeping it and probing is not something England can do. Keeping it and trying to get it forward asap is something they can do.

Tend to agree with this. Actually think Southgate's decision to have multiple interchanging attacking midfielders to make up for our lack of players than can sit and pass or drive forward from deep is probably his best and most innovative decision.

And with essentially zero Tunisia players adopting attacking positions in the second half, one or more of the back three should have been taking up positions in midfield to link the play (Maguire did towards the end), especially since they're all picked for their all round footballing ability

[Per Annum]

I think there is an extent to which the people coming on, like RLC, were only stand-outs by virtue of having come on.

I'm sure if RLC had started and someone like Alli came on for him with 20 to go, Alli would have looked great too.

England were poor after the first 20, the referee was terrible, and even my strong desire to see England lose was completely outdone by Tunisia's horrible approach to the match.

England will rediscover their form from the first 20 and go through, and probably win the first knockout round as well.

I thought Young was the worst performer.

[Astafjevs]

8 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Tend to agree with this. Actually think Southgate's decision to have multiple interchanging attacking midfielders to make up for our lack of players than can sit and pass or drive forward from deep is probably his best and most innovative decision.

And with essentially zero Tunisia players adopting attacking positions in the second half, one or more of the back three should have been taking up positions in midfield to link the play (Maguire did towards the end), especially since they're all picked for their all round footballing ability

Yeh you need defenders to start creating superiority. I think it would also solve the problem pointed out with Henderson being on his own as well. Takes a brave defender to do it. Like you say, Maguire did near the end. I just don't think the defenders England have are as good on the ball as Southgate, and maybe some fans, like to think.

Stones is good. But he's no Piqué or Bonucci on the ball. Not even close

[daylight]

Seriously who would England want in the first knockout round?

Poland is the highest rated but surely England would fancy that rather than Colombia or even Senegal?
Not even convinced Poland will get out of that group.

[themadsheep2001]

@samba23 lovely analyis. You'd think against Belgium he'd have to to more with midfield options. Delph or Loftus cheek in for Alli or Lingard. Maybe both 

[Wigmore]

8 minutes ago, daylight said:

Seriously who would England want in the first knockout round?

Poland is the highest rated but surely England would fancy that rather than Colombia or even Senegal?
Not even convinced Poland will get out of that group.

We'll know more after today but my impression at the moment is that it'll more than likely be either Poland or Colombia. I'm inclined to prefer us playing Poland. Colombia have some decent players and I always feel like England know what they're doing a little more when playing European teams as supposed to South American / African nations.

[samba23]

So I've rewatched the first half and made the following table charting every passing combination when England started possession in defence. The vertical column is passes from, the horizonal column is passes to. For example, Kane completed one pass to each of Young, Lingard and Sterling and received passes from Maguire (2), Trippier and Sterling.

People can take different conclusions from this but there's few things I want to pick up on. Most obviously is the passes between the midfield 3. Henderson passed to Alli 3 times but there were no other passes between the midfield three. Can you imagine a Barca team where Busquets doesn't pass to Iniesta and no passes between Xavi and Iniesta. England couldn't ever get the ball into midfield and keep it there.

Also, the back 3 completed 19 passes to Henderson but only 4 passes to Alli and Lingard combined. Then when Alli and Lingard did get the ball, there was only one pass that didn't go straight back to the back 3. ONE PASS in 45 minutes and this was a nice one-two between Alli and Sterling.

We supposedly play Stones and Walker in central defence for their ability to play out from the back but it was actually Maguire who played the most forward passes. Maguire played 5 passes to the front 4 (including one good pass which led to the corner which led to the goal) whereas Stones and Walker played 3 and 2 respectively. Maguire also played the most passes to a wing-back, 9 (all to Young) compared to 3 and 4 (all to Trippier) from Stones and Walker respectively.

This was in the first half, where England supposedly played well. 

[Wigmore]

5 minutes ago, samba23 said:

This was in the first half, where England supposedly played well. 

We did.

[Crispypaul]

20 minutes ago, daylight said:

Seriously who would England want in the first knockout round?

Poland is the highest rated but surely England would fancy that rather than Colombia or even Senegal?
Not even convinced Poland will get out of that group.

Poland.  They've not beaten us since 1973 and the last 6 fixtures are W4 D2 L0

[Pukey]

19 minutes ago, Wigmore said:

We did.

Exactly. Samba's analysis is good and raises an interesting point but no idea how you can watch the half and think we didn't play well in it, regardless of who's passing to who.

[samba23]

Because we have good attacking players and on the occasions when we were actually able to get the ball forward into attacking positions we looked like we could score every time (against terrible opposition) but we spent so much of the match passing the ball across our back 5 and Henderson, with no idea how to get the ball forward to our line of 4 players up front. 

It was maddeningly frustrating to watch.

[Crispypaul]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44533213

Quote

England's World Cup win over Tunisia was the most-watched television programme of 2018, attracting a peak television audience of 18.3 million on BBC One.

Monday's game in Volgograd, which had a 69.2% audience share at its peak, beat May's Royal Wedding

Beat that Harry and Meghan!

[Pedwar Pump]

1 hour ago, samba23 said:

Because we have good attacking players and on the occasions when we were actually able to get the ball forward into attacking positions we looked like we could score every time (against terrible opposition) but we spent so much of the match passing the ball across our back 5 and Henderson, with no idea how to get the ball forward to our line of 4 players up front. 

It was maddeningly frustrating to watch.

I suppose it could be viewed as frustrating but when we just don't have any reliable, intelligent passers that are good enough at this level it shouldn't be surprising. The theory is we'll do better against teams we can counter and use the pace of Lingard/Sterling/ Trippier/ Vardy and the movement of Alli to exploit space. It certainly looked like that at the start when Tunisia were a bit shaky and weren't sitting as far back. Just how well it'll work in practice against teams that feature really good technical players waits to be seen. I'm not convinced personally, Kane seems to be the only composed attacker and he didn't look like he was fitting into the system that well yesterday. Could have been he was marked out of it but I wasn't really watching that closely.

[scott MUFC]

so, FIFA looking at VAR after last nights wrestling.

[daylight]

The question is though, who will look at the people that are looking at the people that are looking at VAR?

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, Pedwar Pump said:

Kane seems to be the only composed attacker and he didn't look like he was fitting into the system that well yesterday. Could have been he was marked out of it but I wasn't really watching that closely.

Tunisia didnt do any marking. The problem was Kane was surrounded by players that like to burst forward... He simply couldnt keep up. It's fine he was able to play the 10 role and let those guys play.... But then we moan that we couldnt apply the finishing touch. If we want to be clinical we need to play in a way that Kane is n or around the box for the final touch...we didnt do that. Do we sacrifice our fast attackers for say RLC to get more out of Kane? I would... Otherwise gota restrict either Sterlings assets or Kanes. Personally i feel if we have Kane im box he can score us 10 goals and give us a chance to go far... So whilst Lingard and Sterlings full throttle runs were more exciting... It probably hindered our ease of winning

[themadsheep2001]

24 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

Tunisia didnt do any marking. The problem was Kane was surrounded by players that like to burst forward... He simply couldnt keep up. It's fine he was able to play the 10 role and let those guys play.... But then we moan that we couldnt apply the finishing touch. If we want to be clinical we need to play in a way that Kane is n or around the box for the final touch...we didnt do that. Do we sacrifice our fast attackers for say RLC to get more out of Kane? I would... Otherwise gota restrict either Sterlings assets or Kanes. Personally i feel if we have Kane im box he can score us 10 goals and give us a chance to go far... So whilst Lingard and Sterlings full throttle runs were more exciting... It probably hindered our ease of winning

He didn't make himself open for space. His off the ball movement was really poor. Can't be a option if you don't make yourself one

[pearcey_90]

Also, Sterling and Lingard fast pace and attacks resulted in free kicks higher up the pitch and corners, where Kane scored two from.

RLC will be a great impact player of the bench for me this World Cup, unsure about starting him, rather go with someone like Delph over Alli if you wanted a CM in there. Really need to play Rose over Young though moving forward. Sterling keeps getting pelters from media because he's not out and out wide and drifts inside, but that's his role in this side, not his fault there's no full back utilising the space when he moves in those more central areas, so when he has the ball he's hampered there for an option to pass. At City he has Walker maurading in the space so is used to an overlap. Also when Rashford comes on, he's instructed more to operate in that wider area then Sterling is at start of games as a different option, so it's not like it's a like for like tactical swap.