Group B: England, Iran, USA, Wales

[Foxdiamond]

This was a poor 0-0 in the respect we were second best all over the pitch rather than a game where you think we still played well without winning

[ARM1968]

Well that was utter gash. However, you have to give the USA credit for being incredibly organised and athletic. 

[Guest Col city fan]

5 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Very romantic way of looking at it that, outstanding might be pushing it. Beat an average Scotland, good result v the Dutch, squeaked past a not great Spain side then lost to Germany. 

The difference with Euro 96 was about how the team played after the first match. Quick, exciting, attacking… basically going for it.

It felt so much different to that shite tonight 

 

[trabuch]

7 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Very romantic way of looking at it that, outstanding might be pushing it. Beat an average Scotland, good result v the Dutch, squeaked past a not great Spain side then lost to Germany. 

Dodgy disallowed goal for Spain IIRC. What I remember most from that tournament was some outstanding creative football from Gascoigne - who wouldn't get near a Southgate side.

[Super_horns]

Southgate made it sound like USA are some sort of formidable force there.

 

Then seemed to suggest Wales won’t be the same - expecting an easy game to manage ?

[chrishlcfc]

That was very Leicester football that. Far too slow, sideways/backwards passes. No tempo.

 

To be fair I suppose we have moved on from that the last month or so.

[Corky]

The Five Live interview sounds like he's reading off a Rodgers script.

[Tommy Fresh]

3 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

Absolutely. 

 

Look at the defence.

 

We went in to that tournament having not qualified for the World Cup in 94 and being demolished in Euro 92.

Is our defence this World Cup actually that good? Besides a couple of good wing backs

[Dahnsouff]

Thankfully now listening to Tifo about the England game, now more gash pundits

[fuchsntf]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Wtf do all actual managers and Southgate see in Mason Mount. ****ing overhyped Iain Hume

I must admit,Like you I am totally dumbfounded when we have Foden & Grealish

that Mount is first choice..

[trabuch]

1 minute ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Is our defence this World Cup actually that good? Besides a couple of good wing backs

I would worry about some decent players running at them.

[tom27111]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Is our defence this World Cup actually that good? Besides a couple of good wing backs

 

Not really. 

 

But under a proper manager, I'd back us to outscore any opposition. 

 

Got to work with what you've got.

 

If it means taking the Keegan at Newcastle approach, so be it.

 

And I'd rather go out like that than not using our attackers to their strengths. 

Edited 25 November 2022 by tom27111

[TJQuik]

We got carried away again. England are destined never to win anything. **** it

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

7 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

Absolutely. 

 

Look at the defence.

 

We went in to that tournament having not qualified for the World Cup in 94 and being demolished in Euro 92.

 

Sorry but that squad is categorically not "shit" 

[Guest Col city fan]

4 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Southgate made it sound like USA are some sort of formidable force there.

 

Then seemed to suggest Wales won’t be the same - expecting an easy game to manage ?

Southgate is very good at that. Bigging up the opposition to explain away his defensive tactics.

Put it this way, no disrespect to USA but they brought on Josh Sargent as a sub, whereas we DIDNT bring on Phil Foden!

 

[trabuch]

Just now, TJQuik said:

We got carried away again. England are destined never to win anything. **** it

Every effing tournament. Why won't I ever learn??!!

[foxfanazer]

28 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Just need a point v Wales to qualify.

[yorkie1999]

Same old same old, play an half tidy defensive team and we’re fvcked. Bring on Brazil

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Col city fan said:

Southgate is very good at that. Bigging up the opposition to explain away his defensive tactics.

Put it this way, no disrespect to USA but they brought on Josh Sargent as a sub, whereas we DIDNT bring on Phil Foden!

 

A player who plays every game for possibly the best team in the world. Maybe Southgate is saving him

[The_77]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Same old same old, play an half tidy defensive team and we’re fvcked. Bring on Brazil

 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

10 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

The difference with Euro 96 was about how the team played after the first match. Quick, exciting, attacking… basically going for it.

It felt so much different to that shite tonight 

 

 

I'm absolutely not defending tonight by the way but I can't buy into the notion we were some sort of irresistible and exciting force in Euro 96. 

[Tielemans63]

Feel for the folk who've travelled and then paid through the nose to watch that shite live. They deserve better.

[The_77]

As we like to say in the States, “Never Forget”

 

[Tielemans63]

Just now, The_77 said:

As we like to say in the States, “Never Forget”

 

Didn't realise doing **** all and then giving it away on the odd occasion you do show for the ball was actually a 'complex tactical job'.

[Tommy Fresh]

8 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

Not really. 

 

But under a proper manager, I'd back us to outscore any opposition. 

 

Got to work with what you've got.

 

If it means taking the Keegan at Newcastle approach, so be it.

 

And I'd rather go out like that than not using our attackers to their strengths. 

My point was more around the comparison of this squad to that of 96 and you comparing the defences of both. I don't disagree on Southgate and his tactics, I've never been a huge fan really.

Edited 25 November 2022 by Tommy Fresh