The Football.....

[matticus]

(Argentina had 56% of the possesion first half. Apart from the Gordon goal I haven't seen any stats suggesting we were bossing the game - or indeed sharing it - upto that point. It's not clear to me that "carrying on as we were" was a surefire way to win the game. Maybe ARG were just better on the night ... )

 

[No Ta Doctor]

(Argentina had 56% of the possesion first half. Apart from the Gordon goal I haven't seen any stats suggesting we were bossing the game - or indeed sharing it - upto that point. It's not clear to me that "carrying on as we were" was a surefire way to win the game. Maybe ARG were just better on the night ... )

Well I don't think there's ever going to be a "surefire way to win" against the current world champions, with the best player ever to touch a football still (just) playing for them, but I'm pretty sure playing with 6 defenders on the pitch and no real midfield or attack isn't it. You can sit deep, but you need to have a credible counter attack to keep the opposition on their toes and to ease the pressure occasionally and I'm not sure what that was supposed to be. Whatever talents Kane has they're pretty much wasted playing just in front of our defence, and he's not exactly going to be getting up the pitch at lightning pace.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Once you cease to pose any attacking threat you hand control of the game to the opposition. They can then dictate the tempo of the match and you're constantly on the back foot. I've always been of the opinion that the best way to defend a lead is to bring on a fresh attacker.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well I don't think there's ever going to be a "surefire way to win" against the current world champions, with the best player ever to touch a football still (just) playing for them, but I'm pretty sure playing with 6 defenders on the pitch and no real midfield or attack isn't it. You can sit deep, but you need to have a credible counter attack to keep the opposition on their toes and to ease the pressure occasionally and I'm not sure what that was supposed to be. Whatever talents Kane has they're pretty much wasted playing just in front of our defence, and he's not exactly going to be getting up the pitch at lightning pace.

It doesn’t help when Pickford keeps booting the ball upfield to an Argentine player.

 

[matticus]

Well I don't think there's ever going to be a "surefire way to win" against the current world champions, with the best player ever to touch a football still (just) playing for them, but I'm pretty sure playing with 6 defenders on the pitch and no real midfield or attack isn't it.

We had all our attacking players on the pitch, except Gordon. The facts are in my post.

You can sit deep, but you need to have a credible counter attack to keep the opposition on their toes and to ease the pressure occasionally and I'm not sure what that was supposed to be. Whatever talents Kane has they're pretty much wasted playing just in front of our defence, and he's not exactly going to be getting up the pitch at lightning pace.

I don't really dispute that. (although Kane is actually a useful defensive asset! He helped snuff out multple attacks down the middle.)

But how does this relate to my comments on Tuchel's decisions??

 

[No Ta Doctor]

It doesn’t help when Pickford keeps booting the ball upfield to an Argentine player.

Some say he's better with his feet than with his inexplicably short T-Rex arms.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Some say he's better with his feet than with his inexplicably short T-Rex arms.

I’m sure he would end up just throwing to the Argentinians.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

We had all our attacking players on the pitch, except Gordon. The facts are in my post.

I don't really dispute that. (although Kane is actually a useful defensive asset! He helped snuff out multple attacks down the middle.)

But how does this relate to my comments on Tuchel's decisions??

Que?
Eze, Saka, Rashford, Toney...

But we had no real attack or midfield because Kane provided no threat and the rest were clearly tiring. We took off a midfielder and an attacker to be replaced by two defenders. Tuchel didn't freshen up the attack or freshen up the midfield. That doesn't seem controversial to me.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

I’m sure he would end up just throwing to the Argentinians.

I was thinking more of his shot stopping and cross claiming...

 

[vickster]

It doesn’t help when Pickford keeps booting the ball upfield to an Argentine player.

I don't think England (at least as a group) have the footballing skills to play out from the back against Argentina (or probably France or Spain for that matter)!
An excuse, but England did have to do a heck of a lot of travelling between each match, many looked worn out (Kane also in the Norway game where he also struggled with the heat)!

 

[matticus]

Que?
Eze, Saka, Rashford, Toney...

But we had no real attack or midfield because Kane provided no threat and the rest were clearly tiring. We took off a midfielder and an attacker to be replaced by two defenders. Tuchel didn't freshen up the attack or freshen up the midfield. That doesn't seem controversial to me.

OMG. epic whataboutery. I've listed the subs - it's up there in black-andwhite. Only 1 attacking player taken off, and that was AFTER 17mins of ARG dominance. You're straying into parallel universe fiction now.

You're leading 1-nil and the opposition have massive threats => replace a tired defender. How is THAT controversial ?!? Plenty of top teams have won WC ties doing exactly the same.

 

[AndyRM]

Whoever came up with this is a genius.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

OMG. epic whataboutery. I've listed the subs - it's up there in black-andwhite. Only 1 attacking player taken off, and that was AFTER 17mins of ARG dominance. You're straying into parallel universe fiction now.

You're leading 1-nil and the opposition have massive threats => replace a tired defender. How is THAT controversial ?!? Plenty of top teams have won WC ties doing exactly the same.

I don't really understand what your problem is. You say the facts are there in black and white and they are. We took off an attacker, a midfielder and a defender and replaced them with three defenders. We weren't brilliant before we did that and we were worse after. At no point did Tuchel try and change what we were doing by freshening the attack and midfield - or not until injury time where he made a desperate roll of the dice, far too late.

We were forced back before the subs, and our subs just acknowledged and accepted that instead of challenging it. We didn't even manage to mark Messi effectively after them, which I would have at least had some acceptance for, he was in acres of space most of the time. If you're going to park the bus then at least be good at it, and have a legitimate counter attacking threat to take the edge off the pressure.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Never mind, we're not out of it yet. Still third place to play for.

And yes, it is worth playing for.

 

[AndyRM]

Never mind, we're not out of it yet. Still third place to play for.

And yes, it is worth playing for.

Worth $30m too, which isn't a huge amount for sides like England or France, but it's still a significant sum, especially for a smaller FA.