I agree with most in that it will likely be a 0-0 or 1-0 France. I was talking to my brother yesterday and we agreed that all the games so far have been quite good, they have been pleasantly surprising after the dire world cup. However it's likely that tonight's early kick off will be the first snoozefest of the championships
Originally Posted by: wallaw
Good call.
Look at the Ireland team. In many respects, it's like an England 'B' team in so far as the vast majority have come through the ranks in the Premier League or Championship and are typical 'English' players. With typical English technical deficiencies. They're coached by a Italian with a conservative approach to the game and have built a reputation as a defensive-minded team.
Yet they gave it a go last night, especially after falling behind. Out-skilled by Croatia and looking far less comfortable on the ball (terrified at times, and desperate to pass it), they at least tried to get the ball and some numbers forwards. A bit like in a boxing match when a limited slugger faces a champion, but still goes toe to toe. OK, that may be romanticising it too much for effect (and in reality, the Irish were pegged back on the ropes for most of the game, probably willingly at times).
But my point is to compare their approach with how England have played in recent tournaments (especially SA 2010), when despite having some players who genuinely have skill and comfort on the ball (although the 'golden generation' were over-hyped, they still were quality players). They have proven this with top displays for their clubs in the Champions League at times. Yet put them in an England shirt at a tourament and they look terrified, clueless, uncomfortable. They've been 'owned' by much lesser teams and left clinging on in defence in stale, dull games.
Given Hodgson's predaliction for well-organised, defence-orientated teams, can anyone really see us giving it a go against the French? Trying to dictate the pace of the game to one more natural to the England players? (ie - frenetic) To switch analogies to cricket this time, it's like we're a batsman facing a decent spinner, and going into his shell to let the spinner dominate him, when the better approach would be to take on the bowler and try to dominate them, forcing them to become defensive. Of course, the outcome could be that you lose your wicket cheaply. But at least you've given it a go. Not played for a 0-0 bore-athon.
I guess that's why I liked Keegan as England boss, his great 'sh*t or bust' attitude. I remember England coming out against a well-fancied Portugal stuffed with top players and spanking them for half and hour, going 2-0 up. OK, so it all went a bit T-U after that. Perhaps if Keegan had been a better manager he'd have changed things at that point to lose a bit of gung-ho'ness. But it showed what we could do if the players were given a licence to go at the opponents from the off. And it was exciting.
If England lose 1-0 tonight to a late goal after a Herculean defensive effort (the overall effect being a snorefest) it will do nothing but stir negativity. On the other hand, a 3-2 loss after an exciting end-to-end game would get the players and fans and media up for it.
But we know the reality will be 11 men behind the ball and much sideways/backwards passing.
Yawn.
Martin
Home: St Helens (26m asl) Work: Manchester (75m asl)
A TWO addict since 14/12/01
"How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics."
Aneurin Bevan