Jump to content

QF4: England vs France, 7PM GMT, Al Bayt Stadium


Darius1998
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Smallen said:

“you got two penalties, can’t complain!!!” is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve heard.

Yeah, it doesn't exactly take away from the fact we should have had 3 and also that their first goal shouldn't have stood. That is of course just my opinion, it's debatable and people can make up their own mind, but I'm allowed to have mine just as much as anyone's.

The game went how I thought it would, close and not much in it  on another day we win, this just wasn't our day. Mot sure if Southgate should go, think I'd rather keep him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Pukey said:

Ref was **** but wasn't why we lost. 

RE Southgate, should he go? Er, maybe? I know this is the best generation forever and you're always gonna get the idea we should win things, and well we should really, but it's international football and it's bloody hard. 

Performances have been dull at times yeah but I just can't have any anger towards him after last night. I think the set up was good, we played well, but unfortunately if you play good teams you can still lose. There's probably some intricacies you can discuss and see if there's things that could have been done a bit differently but overall I'm just seeing it as one of those things. Top level sport you can do a lot of things right and still lose because you're playing opposition who are very good too. 

I think fresh ideas could help the group but I won't be angry if he stays on either. Would be nice if we could play a bit more exciting football at times but yeah. 

The last point is never going to happen though. We're so slow in the build up it's ridiculously frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Rebs said:

Yeah, it doesn't exactly take away from the fact we should have had 3 and also that their first goal shouldn't have stood. That is of course just my opinion, it's debatable and people can make up their own mind, but I'm allowed to have mine just as much as anyone's.

The game went how I thought it would, close and not much in it  on another day we win, this just wasn't our day. Mot sure if Southgate should go, think I'd rather keep him.

Three?

Kane/Upamecano point of contact was outside.

First goal was just extremely naive, it wasn't even a clear counter, more of a full build-up with everyone at the back already.


France won the last final with an opener that came from a blatant, no-contact dive, scored their set piece. The second one was a penalty for a handball that's never given anymore. What can you do.

I still think England was a better team, but one of the two things they needed didn't happen.

Either the biggest star delivering or a coach that's capable of making pro-active subs, instead of being reactionary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

The last point is never going to happen though. We're so slow in the build up it's ridiculously frustrating.

That's what I mean, we're not gonna get exciting football under him which would be nice, but tbf I don't think a lot of international teams do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it comes down to if Southgate feels this side has turned a corner under him, or if the tournament was a last dance. 

As people probably forget approaching this World Cup we looked like a side that was approaching the end under Southgate. 

There hasn’t and don’t think there will be a standout side at this WC, which makes it painful dropping short again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Adam said:

The two extremes of binary in this thread are peak internet.

Either the ref was horrendous and England were screwed or the ref was fine and the English are just moaning.

Of course the answer is actually in the middle. England were unlucky with a few decisions, and didn't get the rub of the green. But thats football. England didn't do enough to win and France did. Job done.

England fans are of course going to moan about it. The same way the Welsh would if it had happened to them. And the French if it had happened to them, And the Brazilians if it had happened to them etc.

It's impossible to know if the Scottish would moan about it because I can't see them being in a similar position ;);) (had to end with some bants sorry)

Shut up...we'll get there eventually, at some point perhaps. :D

Watching it last night, I didn't think the foul on Kane was a penalty, it happened outside the box but it was a foul. The other two were nailed on penalties, why it took VAR for the second one is beyond me. Kane shouldn't be missing that though, you can excuse it if the keeper guesses right and saves it, but to not hit the target from 12 yards is inexcusable, he bottled it under pressure sadly. I thought England were decent this tournament, but I don't think they're good enough to win it just yet. You lose Kane, there is no one coming in that you're confident fills that gap, left back is weak and centre half is pretty limited for top quality, but I think the team will grow and push on if Southgate can get away from picking those that "haven't let me down before" but are not in form or favour. A Euros final, only losing on penalties and a World Cup quarter final is not bad going for a side with Harry Maguire in it. Would love Scotland to be in that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

Especially when both were clear :D

 

Well, the second penalty would never by given by VAR in the Premier League. It was a foul and a penalty, but VAR in England never overtunes it.

Then in this challenge French defender wanted to challenge fairly. But the push on Giroud was just a cheating foul with no intention of fair challenge. England is quite lucky that VAR didn't intervene there.

This thread is really weird with all those bias suggestions. As many pointed out already, this ref waved on a number of English fouls, too. There is no difference between that foul on Saka or on Mbappe. France didn't score because of a missed foul. England fully regrouped for a defence, no need to put any blame on the ref for that goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, arenaross said:

Yeh I think the ref is a red herring. As others have pointed out, we hardly created anything of note and I get that's Gareth's thing but I'm situations like this it backfires.

Like yeh, we looked comfortable for long spells but also at some point you have to try and win a game. 

Bringing Grealish on for 32 seconds or whatever. What's the point? Southgate just a bit of a weirdo imo and I firmly believe now is the right time for him to move on. 

Very true. I do believe taking Saka off killed us. He was poor first half, but was terrifying Hernandez in the second, Southgate just had to get Sterling on though didn't he.

Edited by Baptista_8
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skybluedave said:

This is like the worst possible result for predicting Southgate's future :D If we won then he 100% stays and rightly so. If we lost comfortably and looked out classed then time time to go. But this... is kinda dead in the middle

Even winning this and then losing to Morocco would have made it easier to predict! 

FA are 100% not sacking him but God knows what he'll decide personally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baptista_8 said:

Very true. I do believe taking Saka off killed us. He was poor first half, but was terrifying Hernandez in the second, Southgate just had to get Sterling on though didn't he.

Totally agree. Saka was causing lots of havoc and Sterling was well...Sterling. 

Edited by arenaross
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Baptista_8 said:

Very true. I do believe taking Saka off killed us. He was poor first half, but was terrifying Hernandez in the second, Southgate just had to get Sterling on though didn't he.

I don't think Saka was poor first half. He got much better in the second though. He was being fouled constantly and was scaring the French backline from the off.

As discussed previously, if he's not gone off for a knock then it's a dreadful decision to take him off. A proper Southgate of a move.

Edited by ginnybob
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ginnybob said:

I don't think Saka was poor first half. He got much better in the second though. He was being fouled constantly and was scaring the French backline from the off.

As discussed previously, if he's not gone off for a knock then it's a dreadful decision to take him off. A proper Southgate of a move.

Fair point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toffle said:

Shocking? This game surely is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) in the ref's life. It's HIS game to referee. If he decides to use VAR to make sure he's taking the right decision, let him do so. No shaming here.

Literally clattered him over in the box, he shouldn’t need VAR for that. I was at the opposite end of the pitch and it was clear as day. If VAR hadn’t pulled him over to watch it he wouldn’t have given it, he didn’t decide to use VAR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ginnybob said:

Recent bias and all that but I think I actually feel more gutted about this result than the Italy game. It was there for the taking and we had large parts of the game on top. The Italy game was a dire performance all round.

Agree, we were terrible in the Italy match and last night we were pretty good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ginnybob said:

Recency bias and all that but I think I actually feel more gutted about this result than the Italy one. It was there for the taking and we had large parts of the game on top. The Italy game was a dire performance all round.

I know what you mean, but I'm the other way on it. Far happier at us going out playing like that and deserving to win than I was when we played Italy. 

There were promising signs in last night's game. 6 months ago, we 100% would've swapped to a back 5 for that game. Instead we took it to them as much as we realistically could. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the second one, I think the referee's placement meant he thought the contact was shoulder to shoulder, which, if it were, would have been robust and a bit cynical, but still within the laws of the game. The kind of foul most don't like seeing but would be put down to clever play.  

Am sure that's what Hernandez was aiming for too, because he cant be stupid enough to intentionally do what he actually did. But Mount is clever enough to ensure that he just clatters into his back anyway. It was absolutely stupid from Hernandez who didn't even need to do it. Tried to go in with a "clever" play and got totally done.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

Recency bias and all that but I think I actually feel more gutted about this result than the Italy one. It was there for the taking and we had large parts of the game on top. The Italy game was a dire performance all round.

Said the same to my friends. It actually feels more disappointing going out that way because we were the better team and should have won. If we’d been outplayed I think it would have been easier to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skybluedave said:

It looked to me like Mount wasn't going to reach the ball anyway, looked a fair bit over his head. That's why I thought they wouldn't give it. No idea if that's a rule or not though

That's why it was a foul but not a red, because he's probably not reaching it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the referee was shocking but he was shocking with regards to both England and France. I think if England had won, a lot of French people would be saying the same things England are. 

Ultimately, both teams had to deal with the **** refereeing standards. England have only themselves to blame. Afterall, it was not the referee who skied a penalty at the end. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Adam said:

Saka definitely fits the way this England side plays better than Foden does. But Foden is the better player. It’s closer than many think tho.

Despite our decent run, I’d say probably Saka and strangely Harry Kane would be the only players to have come out of it with enhanced reputations. 

Better based on what? Some imaginary intangible and an idealised version of the player rather than what he actually does. Because he’s certainly not better as a winger. Can’t beat his man 1 v 1 lack Saka can. Not as clever mentally either 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, _mxrky said:

Better based on what? Some imaginary intangible and an idealised version of the player rather than what he actually does. Because he’s certainly not better as a winger. Can’t beat his man 1 v 1 lack Saka can. Not as clever mentally either 

What :D

e: not gonna argue about who is or isn't better because I've said many times i think Saka is incredible, but Foden is too. Foden broke into a star studded City side and cemented his name as one of the best players, nevermind best young players. No idea what makes you think he's not intelligent or incapable of beating his man. He's phenomenal in both aspects. 

also Saka plays as an inside forward where Foden is a more traditional winger. They're not even really comparable. 

Edited by JD nawrat
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

Recency bias and all that but I think I actually feel more gutted about this result than the Italy one. It was there for the taking and we had large parts of the game on top. The Italy game was a dire performance all round.

I'm more gutted about last night but I think that's because this is the World Cup. It's the big one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JD nawrat said:

What :D

e: not gonna argue about who is or isn't better because I've said many times i think Saka is incredible, but Foden is too. Foden broke into a star studded City side and cemented his name as one of the best players, nevermind best young players. No idea what makes you think he's not intelligent or incapable of beating his man. He's phenomenal in both aspects. 

He can’t beat his man as well as Saka can from  a standing start. Literally Arteta’s whole atttacking plan is based on isolating Saka 1 v1 vs the oppo full back. I didn’t at Foden isn’t intelligent. He’s not intelligent as Saka though. He’s not phenomenal at either aspects. If he was he wouldn’t be bang average at rw and he also wouldn’t  be playing on the wing. He should be playing centrally but he hasn’t developed the midfielder qualities  yet because he hasn’t developed mentally enough for it.

Edited by _mxrky
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, skybluedave said:

I think this WC has cemented Saka and Foden as our first choice wide players for the forseeable. 

I think Foden should play in the middle because you have no proper playmakers.
Neither Rice nor Bellingham are playmakers, do you have someone else coming up?

There's plenty of talent on the wings, Foden should be #10, he's the only one capable of creating a goal out of nothing.

Saka-Foden-Bellingham should be the trio around which the team is built.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

Why are people so weird about Saka :D 

Bellingham and Foden get called generational talents when Saka outperformed them both this tournament and has been outperforming the later for a year and a half in a worse team. He never gets his dues and it’s ridiculous. Always seen as inferior for whatever reason. Even the arsenal researcher told me he’s not an elite talent like foden/ greenwood. Which was utter nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, skybluedave said:

I think this WC has cemented Saka and Foden as our first choice wide players for the forseeable. 

Oh god, hope not. Foden needs to be central. He can do the job on left well, but centrally he’s key for us moving forward. He’s best involvement last night was when he was allowed to leave the left touchline and pick the ball up more centrally. Meant he didn’t have Kounde man marking him and France didn’t know who to pick him up.

Getting him to work in a midfield three which contains Bellingham should be a priority moving forward to the Euros IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Smallen said:

“you got two penalties, can’t complain!!!” is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve heard.

I agree completely that if they were genuine pens then that they were awarded says nothing as to bias or lack of. 

But Maguire didn't say England didn't get the 50/50 decisions (and they did get a fair few of them), he said they didn't get anything. Which is nothing more than wee man tragic sour grapes 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TM said:

can't be bothered reading back but did Matterface actually say "England needed a Lineker, instead they got a Waddle" when Kane missed the 2nd penalty?

I'm sure some will have a wee laugh at it but that's disrespectful towards someone who is almost certainly going to becoming the England all time goalscorer and has saved them on numerous occasions.  I watched the BBC replay last night and Mowbray was saying Kane has been England's hero/saviour in the past and didn't deserve it

then again I could just start this with "it's Matterface, he's terrible at his job" :cool:

To go back to this I actually feel even more annoyed by his comment now. It's not just hugely disrespectful to England's record goalscorer but for Waddle himself, who was a phenomenal player who's been boiled down to punchline jokes about a penalty from some talentless hack of a commentator. I would say Matterface is the Diana Ross penalty kick of commentators but that would be in itself disrespectful to Diana Ross.

****ing arsehole

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
1 hour ago, Smallen said:

“you got two penalties, can’t complain!!!” is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve heard.

Can't complain that much. At least get your quote right.

First goal simply nothing wrong with that. First penalty, while it was one - often doesn't get given So you can't complain much.

Second one was a silly barge, so fine there. From one angle that actually didn't look bad either.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cyclonus1010 said:

Should be building your attack around Foden for the next 10 years.

Strikes me as a player who will go on to the next level when he is given more responsibility. But has to be centrally. Not as a striker ofc.

Then he actually has to learn how to play as a midfielder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...