But why was he beaten up by other Welsh fans?
England v Wales, Wembley, Tuesday 6 September 7.45pm
- Thread starter Mike.
- Start date
- Replies 157
- Views 9K
But why was he beaten up by other Welsh fans?
No idea! Sickening! Best not to even speculate at the moment, hopefully tomorrow we find out more details
Forgot about Johnson, prefer Jarvis to left, Lennon sucks more balls than Elton John.
Seems some people are just ****** in the head...
Either way it's disgraceful.
Cardiff and Swanseas fans I heard.
tbh, i dont really get behind england, but i think your being a bit harsh. today, in spells, they were neat triangles, and lovely passing, especially in the first half, its just Wales actually played really well, and hats off to them.
It's like when teams come to the emirates usually, they set up shop, and hope for a point, and the game becomes boring as the tempo slows. England, despite huge pressure, manage to qualify and even when they get results, get slaughtered.
If liverpool had won a game 1-0 despite being dominated for large parts of the game, you would be harking on about 'sign on champs', and great spirit.
give.me.a.break.
I'm happy we won, don't get me wrong. Just something about them under Capello bores me. Like you said, hats off to Wales, they played well.
& You're right, if that was Liverpool, i'd be a lot happier, because I support Liverpool a lot more passionately than I do England.
& You're right, if that was Liverpool, i'd be a lot happier, because I support Liverpool a lot more passionately than I do England.
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I just HATE how England REFUSE to beat teams convincingly.
3-0 at half time against Bulgaria and then we decide...ah thats good enough, lets have a rest and just try and keep the ball badly.
Holland beat San Marino 11-0 the other day. I can garentee that England would have got to 3-0 against San Marino and decided that was good enough, and say to each other 'lets now just walk round the pitch and not try at all', or at least give that perception, and take a 3-0 win.
We just dont have that killer instinct, and i cant remember the last time we had it. If we cant destroy tiny teams cause we just cant be arsed, what kind of pshycological message does that send to our more illustrious opponents? That England have no experience of killing games off, they have no killer instinct and they are more than happy to just 'settle' for wins. If I knew that about a team I'd know they were there for the taking!
But i guess thats too much to ask for England to change their ways....
3-0 at half time against Bulgaria and then we decide...ah thats good enough, lets have a rest and just try and keep the ball badly.
Holland beat San Marino 11-0 the other day. I can garentee that England would have got to 3-0 against San Marino and decided that was good enough, and say to each other 'lets now just walk round the pitch and not try at all', or at least give that perception, and take a 3-0 win.
We just dont have that killer instinct, and i cant remember the last time we had it. If we cant destroy tiny teams cause we just cant be arsed, what kind of pshycological message does that send to our more illustrious opponents? That England have no experience of killing games off, they have no killer instinct and they are more than happy to just 'settle' for wins. If I knew that about a team I'd know they were there for the taking!
But i guess thats too much to ask for England to change their ways....
Last edited:
Slightly disappointed tbh. I wasn't expecting us to batter them but we didn't keep the ball well, nor did we create much and Wales should have taken a point from the game.
Still I agree that we ground out a result well, and the top teams we play in major tournaments will be more expansive leaving bigger gaps for us to exploit (Wales were very well drilled defensively and kept it tight). We still have to play better than tonight though.
---------- Post added at 02:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------
What's wrong with beating a team 3-0?? Honestly if you're not satisfied with that than what will you be satisfied with? I could understand being disappointed with tonight more, because we didn't play particularly well, but there was nothing wrong with the performance against Bulgaria.
Still I agree that we ground out a result well, and the top teams we play in major tournaments will be more expansive leaving bigger gaps for us to exploit (Wales were very well drilled defensively and kept it tight). We still have to play better than tonight though.
---------- Post added at 02:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------
What's wrong with beating a team 3-0?? Honestly if you're not satisfied with that than what will you be satisfied with? I could understand being disappointed with tonight more, because we didn't play particularly well, but there was nothing wrong with the performance against Bulgaria.
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
nothing wrong with beating a team 3-0, but its the fact that we stop at that when we could clearly do better.
Was it Andorra a few years ago when we 'settled' for a 2-0 win? In my opinion thats a poor result.
Just ask yourself....when England play San Marino in the World Cup qualifiers this time next year....do you think we'd consider doing what Holland did to them? 11-0 for England? Really? I bet you we dont score more than 4 against them, probably all in the first half before not even trying any more.
What I'm saying is England need to be seen as a team that dont take any prisoners and will punish you. Thats what will scare the bigger teams when they face us
There's nothing 'clearly' about it. Maybe you don't understand the gulf in class between San Marino and Bulgaria. Bulgaria is a big nation with Premier League performers like Martin and Stiliyan Petrov. San Marino is a midget amongst nations, with semi-pros AT BEST to call upon. A 3-0 win is an efficient performance with no effort wasted. What's the point striving to put 11 past them? What good does it bring? I'd rather we kept the ball and gave our team valuable pitch time learning how each other play than just chucking everyone forward in the hope of getting another eight goals.
I find it mildly hilarious that on one hand you criticise England for playing keep-ball, and then say that we have no experience of killing a game off. Killing a game off is going 3-0 up and then retaining possession, not trying to get more and more goals and leaving yourself open to a counterattack for the opponent to get back into the game. What you're suggesting will sometimes work, probably work the majority of times against smaller nations in fact. We could've past 6 past Bulgaria. But there was maybe a 30% chance we wouldn't have scored and they'd have caught us on the counter and pulled one back. Maybe a 15% chance they'd have done it twice. And a small, maybe 5% chance we would've conceded three times trying to score more and more times rather than retaining possession, and then we'd have dropped two points. So what's the point? Why throw away a certain three points in order to risk having one, or even none?
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
we nearly conceeded 3 times trying to just keep the ball and we had zero chances in that second half. So i would argue its of little to no benefit to have your team all playing together while their playing at 50%. You need to get experience of your team playing at 100% for 90 minutes, thats how a team gels properly so they have experience for the big games.
international football is totally different from club football. they only play a maximum of 2 games a month, sometimes no games for 4 months. how can players gel together and understand how to play with each other if they dont play to their potential for 90 minutes when they only have limited games? they cant
thats the one point im making, and the other is a major part of the game...psychology. Lets say we are playing Germany and they look back at our results over the last 24 months. They see we've beat Bulgaria 3-0, ok good result, but I bet they would have taken a step back and thought '****, England are on fire' if they saw we had won by what we could have if we'd been playing properly for the 2nd half, 6-0... or more
3 points is 3 points at the end of the day, but in the qualifying stages, where we should have no trouble qualifying for any major tournament, we should be sending out messages to the other major nations
---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 AM ----------
and to be honest, Bulgaria had more chances and looked more dangerous against us when we tried to keep the ball and sit back than they ever did when we were pushing forward for goals in the first half
Psychology is a funny old subject, you can argue that they'd think '****, England are on fire' what does that achieve? It has no right objective. Sure, it COULD force them to play out of their skin to make sure of the result, alternatively, it could put the fear of a hammering into them, to sit back and hold out for a draw or a sneaky goal. And then what if our results are 'poor', could they not suffer from overconfidence, to feel the game's already won only to be taken by surprise. Chaos theory is awesome.
How often have you seen a team go at 100% for a full game? Never heard of energy conservation? There's no use exerting yourself needlessly. How do you learn what your team mates want to do when you're going full tilt for a cricket scoreline? You're not learning their play, you're learning how good they are at flooding the box and converting chances. When you're in control of possession, you're learning where players like to move, you're learning the passes players like to make, you're learning that your 'keeper likes to go short rather than hoof it. By your logic, teams should play friendlies gung ho to 'learn' their team mates, yet the opposite is true.
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Psychology is a funny old subject, you can argue that they'd think '****, England are on fire' what does that achieve? It has no right objective. Sure, it COULD force them to play out of their skin to make sure of the result, alternatively, it could put the fear of a hammering into them, to sit back and hold out for a draw or a sneaky goal. And then what if our results are 'poor', could they not suffer from overconfidence, to feel the game's already won only to be taken by surprise. Chaos theory is awesome.
How often have you seen a team go at 100% for a full game? Never heard of energy conservation? There's no use exerting yourself needlessly. How do you learn what your team mates want to do when you're going full tilt for a cricket scoreline? You're not learning their play, you're learning how good they are at flooding the box and converting chances. When you're in control of possession, you're learning where players like to move, you're learning the passes players like to make, you're learning that your 'keeper likes to go short rather than hoof it. By your logic, teams should play friendlies gung ho to 'learn' their team mates, yet the opposite is true.
i think your misunderstanding, im not talking about going gung ho or 'full tilt' for a cricket scoreline. Im talking about playing properly for 90 minutes. Playing the game that we were playing in the first half, controlled. Thats what we need to do.
anyone who thinks the passing square of terry to cahill to parker to barry, back to terry, to cahill, to parker to barry, back to terry etc. helps the team gel.. well....
England had 52% possession against Bulgaria, so we hardly kept the ball well enough for them not to trouble us for the rest of the game.
The fact that everyone i know (and even us) were talking about how Holland put 11 past ANY international team goes to show the impact that kind of result can have. Do you think anyone in any other country are going...'wow, england beat someone 3-0', or 'wow, england beat someone 1-0 who are ranked 112th in the world'?
can u see teams from different nations looking at our games are going '**** england are f'in good'
look at the mentality Man Utd have (by the way i dont support them). Teams playing Man Utd know that they just will not stop, they will not let up. How many times has that lead to a 1-1 draw becoming a 2-1 win in the dying minutes? Thats the psychology im talking about
That's UNITED's psychology not the other team. You can't predict how someone else will react. Psychology isn't as cut and dry as you make out, for instance exams: You can say that these put immense pressure on students, that's a given. How can you predict what result that has? Some thrive off it and ace the exam, some will collapse into a panic attack and fail the exam. Apply that to my football example, and even to your United one. Everyone knows how good Barca are, to United that may be a challenge to thrive off, to another team it's a reason to give in before the game even starts. Play your game, there's no point us hammering a team to send a message, because we have no idea how that message will be interpreted. Sure, if we won by a huge score, a random fixture with Germany could cause them to panic into collapse, it could also force them to play out of their skin against us. THAT is real psychology.
Look at the media, if we were 3-0 up versus Bulgaria, we push for a fourth and they hit us back 3-1. So we push further and concede a 2nd on the break, and then in the dying minutes a sloppy set piece and they equalise. It's not likely to happen, but it could, and the media is far more likely to focus on England collapsing than Bulgaria performing. And they won't say we were too over zealous and not cautious enough, it'll be "players like passion", "they don't care for the shirt", because that's just how they roll.
And you seriously overestimate San Marino. They're semi-pro at best, they're calling on butchers, bankers, dentists etc. to go out and play against one of the most fearsome attacks in international football. They're international by definition only, there's a reason they've lost every qualifier they've played.
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
no i dont, im saying san marino should get beat 11-0 by everyone, but we wont do that. We'll win and win easily, but by 4 goals
and a team like germany know what we're all about....the same as we still are...the mentality of a win is a win and thats good enough. Look where thats led us, they beat us 4-1 in the World Cup right? So in terms of psychology, that perception of us isnt working, or has little to no affect. So why not try a different approach?
I see what your saying about the media, they would get on Englands back if we conceeded, or dropped points. But the fact is they're not raving about the performance either cause in the 2nd half we didnt do ourselves justice. Bulgaria looked much more likely to score in the second half than they did in the 1st, that says something to me that trying to absorb and just play the game out doesnt work. When we played properly they didnt do anything to worry us. im more displeased that they had more chances in that 2nd half because we let them. we could easily have conceeded 3 that way.
Oh don't be so ****** ridiculous. We can walk over San Marino without even trying. Finland beat them 8-0 recently, the Czechs did them 7-0, Poland beat them 10-0, the Hungarians 10-0. These are all results in the last two years. You're resorting to wild hyperbole. If we came up against them we'd likely smash them 8-0 or something ridiculous.
Funny you should mention Germany. I think it was them who not so long ago played Austria, and had to rescue a 2-1 win from the jaws of a draw after they were, you guessed it, caught on the counter after they were pressing for a goal. Weird that.
Fine, but I'd much rather they don't rave about our performance than lambast us for it. In fact, them not raving about it is a HUGE plus for us: decreasing expectation of the national team is something incredibly desirable in this situation.
Thing is, we didn't concede three that way. The fact that they looked much more dangerous isn't an effect of us retaining the ball more, it's a cause. They came out revitalised, determined to go down fighting, and if we'd tried to attack they'd have got us on the counter.
Last edited:
Harriers09
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
lets wait and see....
so germany should have settled for a 1-0 win? if i were german id be more happy that we tried to play and get a better result and snatched a win after conceeding than playing out a 1-0 win. id prefer to win 2-1 playing well all the way through than winning 1-0 and playing bad keep ball for half a game.
the fact is they rave about us when we havent been particularly pleasing but got a good result. thats bad news cause it overhypes our play, making us think we've done well.
the fact they came forward in the second half should have meant it was us hitting them on the counter, which just didnt happen. we did nothing in that second half.
to be honest, and this is nothing personal against you because its what everyone seems to beleive, this is exactly why we will not win a major trophy as a nation. The mentality of 'that'll do'
lets do what we're good at, and lets be honest, thats not playing keep ball. we arent technically good enough to do it. lets play normally for 90 minutes and see what happens
which makes the reasons you criticise England absolute nonsense.
Glad we got that sorted