• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada

Jurgen the German said:
I didn’t say it was solely his fault. And he certainly wasn’t helped by Tuchel’s tactics in the second half. But he’s one of our best players, he has to take some responsibility. Look at Messi, he didn’t score but he was involved in pretty much every chance they created. He realised they were in trouble and once again stepped up and said I’m the best player, I need to drag my team through to the next round. Kane just doesn’t do that at the business end of tournaments. You ask what’s he meant to do? Make life difficult for your opponent, bully them, win headers, hold the ball up, create something. After all, he’s arguably our most creative player as well as being our best goalscorer.
Click to expand...

You’re comparing him with literally the best player of all time.

You’ll also find that Argentina are setup for Messi to do whatever he likes. England don’t do that for Kane.
 
Yiddo said:
They didn’t raise their game, we sat back and let them have the ball.
Click to expand...

England couldn’t get the ball. There’s a difference.

Messi took possession, and kept it, whenever he wanted. Argentina’s technical ability allowed them to limit England to 12% possession after the first goal. A little bit of that was to do with England’s tactics; a lot of it was, imo, to do with the different level of footballing ability of both teams.
 
Pickford should have got to their first. Replay of Bellingham was shown after the match last night where he’s clearly seen saying ‘it’s in the middle of the goal’

Poor subs, some poor performances from starters too. Didn’t deserve to go through in my opinion. With hindsight I don’t think they were the better team against Norway either. Only so long you can play like that before being found out
 
revlis said:
You’re comparing him with literally the best player of all time.

You’ll also find that Argentina are setup for Messi to do whatever he likes. England don’t do that for Kane.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Thrashing Kane for not having the same influence as Messi is a bit misguided. If England were camped on the edge of the Argentinian box for 88% of the time, Kane would have had more influence, no doubt. Messi is hardly an uber presser, but doesn't have to be; he has the water carriers around him to give him the platform to do his magic. If England had given a similar platform to Kane he would pull the strings and score as he always does. Going to a 9 at the back all within the box was folly.
 
Bishop said:
The ref didn't deem Messi's challenge as reckless which is where the intent side of things comes into it. I wouldn't consider Balogun's challenge reckless either and thus I agreed that it should not have been a sending off although I disagreed with them suspending the suspension once they had already decided not to overturn it on the pitch.
Click to expand...

Did you see the Messi challenge vs Algeria?
 
Rorschach said:
Agree.

Thrashing Kane for not having the same influence as Messi is a bit misguided. If England were camped on the edge of the Argentinian box for 88% of the time, Kane would have had more influence, no doubt. Messi is hardly an uber presser, but doesn't have to be; he has the water carriers around him to give him the platform to do his magic. If England had given a similar platform to Kane he would pull the strings and score as he always does. Going to a 9 at the back all within the box was folly.
Click to expand...
There was a massive difference in intent from Argentina as a team than England, so it is much easier for MEssi to be an influence when players are helping him to be that influence by creating space and opportunity. Kane was not the problem
 
Bishop said:
My credible reason is because I don't believe that should be a red. It wasn't what I consider reckless and there was no intent to harm or even challenge the player. It's just clumsy, with regards to reckless play the wording is if the player "shows disregard for an opponents safety" I don't think putting your foot down and accidentally catching the opponents level matches that requirement be suss it's not showing a disregard for their safety.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe Messi's challenge vs Algeria wasn't reckless or as deserving of a red as much as others then i think i'll leave it there

Bishop said:
Honestly I think if you look at these things through a particular lens you will find what you want to see. As I said if you look at SM from ab alternative lens you will see alternative videos and takes. I can't remember that incident in the Cape Verde game tbh so I can't comment I just know I've seen another swapped yellow given for a dive in this world cup.
Click to expand...

As i say, if the situation was that the Argentinian player was treated the same way vs Cape Verde (i.e. yellow taken away from, the Cape Verde playter and instead given to the Argentinian who had dived) as Embolo, no-one would start any of these 'theories'...
 
Bishop said:
@glorygloryeze? Did you think the England player should have been sent off there for catching the Argentine player with a "stamp" after the ball had gone?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what incident you are talking about but, if others in this WC have been sent off for similar then one couldn't complain if so.

It was interesting the number of fouls Simeone got away with before his yellow compared to Anderson...
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
There was a massive difference in intent from Argentina as a team than England, so it is much easier for MEssi to be an influence when players are helping him to be that influence by creating space and opportunity. Kane was not the problem
Click to expand...
Adopting a low block is not the worst idea against a superior team but England did it poorly. They went too compact IMO.

The crosses were raining in as England stayed within the width of their box and conceded the flanks, and one was bound to land at some point.

The shot from outside the box was another symptom of this. There was no one near the shot taker as everyone was too deep expecting a direct cross from the corner. Messi played nearly all of them the same way. He passed it short and received it back and then either crossed or laid it off. I don't remember him crossing directly from the corner. England needed to leave a few players stationed near the edge of the box at the corners and maybe sent someone out to cut out the short corner routine. The keeper might have done a bit better with the shot too, but maybe he was a little unsighted (because of the forest of defenders on top of him)
 
I have to say, that was one of the worst tactical displays by an England manager that i have seen in a big match.
Totally ceded the advantage and actually laid a plate for Argentina to win that match.

If you had watched Argentina's previous matches you'd know they are not pacy at he back and need to be very close to the box to get their main source of opportunities: headers, long shots from the likes of Enzo Fernandes and through balls.
Then if you don't give their defence anything to worry about they can camp in your half and do the slow-slow-quick-quick passing moves they thrive on.
They are not going to break your high line too many time and if they do you can have your defence clean up better than sitting on the edge of the box. Not to mention it's better that Messi gets the ball on the halfway line rather than in or on the edge of the box.
Plus if a winger/attacker would have been somethinf for them to worry about, how many free-kicks and yellow cards would they have had to endure?

What Tuchel did was the equivalent of playing 20 mins after being a goal up vs Arsenal and actually GIVING them corners constantly. I mean, why?

Southgate was bad in the Euro final vs Italy because he was inactive to react to the tide; Tuchel was worse in that he actually CREATED the tide with his subs and changes.

Absolutely woeful and cowardly tactics.
 
Rorschach said:
Adopting a low block is not the worst idea against a superior team but England did it poorly. They went too compact IMO.

The crosses were raining in as England stayed within the width of their box and conceded the flanks, and one was bound to land at some point.

The shot from outside the box was another symptom of this. There was no one near the shot taker as everyone was too deep expecting a direct cross from the corner. Messi played nearly all of them the same way. He passed it short and received it back and then either crossed or laid it off. I don't remember him crossing directly from the corner. England needed to leave a few players stationed near the edge of the box at the corners and maybe sent someone out to cut out the short corner routine. The keeper might have done a bit better with the shot too, but maybe he was a little unsighted (because of the forest of defenders on top of him)
Click to expand...
If we had held on for 10 mins more it would have been seen as tactically class.

My point was more towards comparing Kane and Messi, if we swapped the two over in those sides with totally different intent, then we would see two different performances from both IMO. Messi would have been feeding off scraps
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
If we had held on for 10 mins more it would have been seen as tactically class.

My point was more towards comparing Kane and Messi, if we swapped the two over in those sides with totally different intent, then we would see two different performances from both IMO. Messi would have been feeding off scraps
Click to expand...
Agree with the 2nd part. Not sure about the 1st.

There didn't seem to be anything tactically adept about what England were doing. Argentina were getting plenty of chances before the goals came. If England had held on, it would have been more luck than judgment IMO.
 
Rorschach said:
Agree with the 2nd part. Not sure about the 1st.

There didn't seem to be anything tactically adept about what England were doing. Argentina were getting plenty of chances before the goals came. If England had held on, it would have been more luck than judgment IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeh, TBH I am bored of the WC, today doesn't sting anywhere near it would have done 20 years ago
 
Mikey10 said:
England couldn’t get the ball. There’s a difference.

Messi took possession, and kept it, whenever he wanted. Argentina’s technical ability allowed them to limit England to 12% possession after the first goal. A little bit of that was to do with England’s tactics; a lot of it was, imo, to do with the different level of footballing ability of both teams.
Click to expand...
England brought on non technical players to defend
That was a the change
 
Rorschach said:
Agree with the 2nd part. Not sure about the 1st.

There didn't seem to be anything tactically adept about what England were doing. Argentina were getting plenty of chances before the goals came. If England had held on, it would have been more luck than judgment IMO.
Click to expand...
They had no shots on target before England scored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back