• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

Euro Champs This Weekend (England SPoiler)

HomerJSimpson said:
Agreed. Was very poor. Still not convinced by Delph. Some good stuff but his tackling will get him in trouble
Click to expand...

Delph had a 100% pass completion in the first half. Don't forget that was his first start against a team ranked a lot better than us and people expected to beat us. I thought he did a job but I agree his tackling isn't great but neither was Paul Scholes'.

About time form was the main reason you got called up for international duty and not who you play for.
 
richy said:
Delph had a 100% pass completion in the first half. Don't forget that was his first start against a team ranked a lot better than us and people expected to beat us. I thought he did a job but I agree his tackling isn't great but neither was Paul Scholes'.

About time form was the main reason you got called up for international duty and not who you play for.
Click to expand...

Good comparison with Scholes. I was surprised Delph got the nod to start with. Didn't realise he had a 100% passing record but you can't argue with that. He has potential. No doubt about that
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Good comparison with Scholes. I was surprised Delph got the nod to start with. Didn't realise he had a 100% passing record but you can't argue with that. He has potential. No doubt about that
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, there is a difference between someone who cant tackle, and someone who is a dirty so-and-so.
 
Sterling was poor? Not convinced by Delph? Homer which match were you watching? :eek:

I think the only poor player for England was Wilshere. He seemed lost and didn't know where to be at all. For Wilshere to play well he needs a lot of the ball and he didn't seem to be able to get on the ball.

I thought England were better as it was a team last night rather than a bunch of stars thrown together. Had it not been for a bit of rustiness in front of goal in first half it would have been a right hiding.

Not getting too carried away though because Switzerland were utter gash.
 
Liverbirdie said:
Not necessarily, there is a difference between someone who cant tackle, and someone who is a dirty so-and-so.
Click to expand...

It's not for me to defend Scholes or Delph but LB I would ask which category you would place Gerrard in. A top, top player but over the years he has been responsible for some really nasty tackles.

My point is that it is virtually impossible to find any player in that role who has not got a dodgy/dirty tackle that he should not be proud of in his record, usually, but not always, with the red cards to match.
 
Delph's stats yesterday:

BxEl1pcIMAAEwLk.png


I was impressed with him. Wasn't overly sure about his selection, but he was very good last night. Was a bit too keen early on, and could have been sent off, but after that he was very good.
 
Birchy said:
Sterling was poor? Not convinced by Delph? Homer which match were you watching? :eek:

I think the only poor player for England was Wilshere. He seemed lost and didn't know where to be at all. For Wilshere to play well he needs a lot of the ball and he didn't seem to be able to get on the ball.

I thought England were better as it was a team last night rather than a bunch of stars thrown together. Had it not been for a bit of rustiness in front of goal in first half it would have been a right hiding.

Not getting too carried away though because Switzerland were utter gash.
Click to expand...

On reflection I was happy with the performance. Perhaps I've still got that air of apathy post Brazil. Not a vintage performance a la 5-0 Germany or that manful 0-0 in Turin to qualify but a good result against a competent side away from home. I have to say after Delph got a yellow early on following one or two reckless tackles I was worried he'd go in, or get sucked in once too often but fair play he learned and stayed on his feet. I had no idea his figures were that good. Mind you between doing the forum, flicking over to watch the other scores and having the wife ramble on about something trivial (probably Strictly Come Bake Off) I'm not surprised it passed me by.

I was disappointed by Wilshere but losing possession in midfield and not seeing a lot of it is not a new England trait. On the plus side I was happier with the shift Rooney put in too. Maybe, there is life in the old three lions yet?
 
HomerJSimpson said:
Plenty writing Wellbeck off on other football threads but of all the England strikers tonight he's been far and away the best there. Rooney anonymous and Sterling so wasteful
Click to expand...

Yep , thats why i dont post anymore on those threads as they all experts on football , he will score more goals starting this weekend
 
HomerJSimpson said:
On reflection I was happy with the performance. Perhaps I've still got that air of apathy post Brazil. Not a vintage performance a la 5-0 Germany or that manful 0-0 in Turin to qualify but a good result against a competent side away from home. I have to say after Delph got a yellow early on following one or two reckless tackles I was worried he'd go in, or get sucked in once too often but fair play he learned and stayed on his feet. I had no idea his figures were that good. Mind you between doing the forum, flicking over to watch the other scores and having the wife ramble on about something trivial (probably Strictly Come Bake Off) I'm not surprised it passed me by.

I was disappointed by Wilshere but losing possession in midfield and not seeing a lot of it is not a new England trait. On the plus side I was happier with the shift Rooney put in too. Maybe, there is life in the old three lions yet?
Click to expand...

On reflection=time to think about it.
When did England beat Germany 5.0:o
 
MetalMickie said:
It's not for me to defend Scholes or Delph but LB I would ask which category you would place Gerrard in. A top, top player but over the years he has been responsible for some really nasty tackles.

My point is that it is virtually impossible to find any player in that role who has not got a dodgy/dirty tackle that he should not be proud of in his record, usually, but not always, with the red cards to match.
Click to expand...

Mickie, defending Gerrard doesn't come into it, but for the sake of balance, yes he could also be a dirty so-and-so when he wanted to be(ask Naysmith and Veron). Gerrard was an absolute top notch club player, decent for England but rarely played in his club role, but who has actually been brilliant for England in the last 20-30 years? Because lots of English fans/media expect to be challenging and winning in finals, when they don't they are all seen as rubbish.

As one of the few who will know, the 1966 side seems beyond criticism due to them winning it, but were all the players really "great". Did Geoff Hurst, do much apart from that year for club or country, and others?

The mention of Scholes, was because some people trip out the "mis-timing" of tackles mantra, just cos Fergie used it. The press carried on with it, and anyone with their own brain could tell that some of them were downright nasty and meant. Scholes wasnt the only one, Mcmahon, Souness, Whiteside, Reid and many others were also the same, but the "mis-timing" excuse was the only one that applied to Scholes, sadly rehashed by people who have the opinion, of whatever their morning paper tells them, and cant make their own mind up.

For clarity, Scholes was also an immense, great, goalscoring, tempo-setting midfielder and is one of the stars of the premiership. I'm not even really having a go at him for being dirty, just the apologists who try to.
 
Last edited:
Wenger has made Welbeck world class and its only been a week. He really knows how to develop young players:)

BTW its Welbeck not Wellbeck.:o
 
Liverbirdie said:
Mickie, defending Gerrard doesn't come into it, but for the sake of balance, yes he could also be a dirty so-and-so when he wanted to be(ask Naysmith and Veron). Gerrard was an absolute top notch club player, decent for England but rarely played in his club role, but who has actually been brilliant for England in the last 20-30 years? Because lots of English fans/media expect to be challenging and winning in finals, when they don't they are all seen as rubbish.

As one of the few who will know, the 1966 side seems beyond criticism due to them winning it, but were all the players really "great". Did Geoff Hurst, do much apart from that year for club or country, and others?

The mention of Scholes, was because some people trip out the "mis-timing" of tackles mantra, just cos Fergie used it. The press carried on with it, and anyone with their own brain could tell that some of them were downright nasty and meant. Scholes wasnt the only one, Mcmahon, Souness, Whiteside, Reid and many others were also the same, but the "mis-timing" excuse was the only one that applied to Scholes, sadly rehashed by people who have the opinion, of whatever their morning paper tells them, and cant make their own mind up.

For clarity, Scholes was also an immense, great, goalscoring, tempo-setting midfielder and is one of the stars of the premiership. I'm not even really having a go at him for being dirty, just the apologists who do.
Click to expand...

LB, you are right. I don't think many of those midfield "dynamos" ever mis-timed too many challenges, they were or are too good to do that. Generally it was a calculated gamble and hope that they won i.e. did not get booked or sent off.

I am sure Fergie knew Scholes could often be a nasty sod but, like any manager, he was never going to admit it. The apologists in the media are incapable telling the truth as they are so often. I once saw Giggs commit a terrible foul and the TV folks never said a word.

Re: the "Boys of '66" truth was that there were three truly world-class; Moore, Charlton & Banks. Ray Wilson only just missed out on that rating.

Cohen, Ball & Hunt the next level. That left four others. Peters was apparently "ten years ahead of his time" just a pity his career didn't really last that long. Stiles and Big Jack were good at what they did, which often involved the dark arts.

Sir Geoff Hurst was IMO lucky to be in the right place at the right time. The record book does not lie in this case, he didn't really achieve much else but then a hat-trick in the World Cup final is difficult to top I suppose.
 
To me the qualifying campaign is all a huge waste of time and resources. As they have expanded the finals to 24 teams the top 2 and possibly 3rd will qualify. They then rig the draw and deliberately put the lesser ranked teams in with the top teams and keep the better teams separated as much as possible.

So to me there's not a huge amount of excitement watching matches which mean very little. It's not an arrogant attitude I hope saying that England will qualify, but the way it is done they will have to try very hard not too. Which to me seems a bit of a pointless exercise. The bigger teams don't get that much of a challenge and the lesser teams must get bored of being beaten more often than not. I don't have a problem with it expanding to 24 teams as such as it does give teams more chance to get there, but just the way they want to effectively legally fix who gets there. They will probably then go and seed the teams in the finals as well, yet again desperately trying to ensure the bigger teams with the biggest TV audiences go further in the tournament.

Apart from possibly getting lower TV audiences, I can't see what is wrong with it all being a completely open draw, all the names in a hat and if you draw Germany, Italy, France and Spain in your qualifying group then suck it up. The best teams in the end will score more points and get to the finals. And if that means that some lesser teams get there through the luck of the draw, and some bigger teams go out, then so be it.
 
I missed the match but was listening to phone-in afterwards. Without knowing the score the first calls I heard suggested that England had lost or not played well. X wasn't doing this; Y can't play there; Z is not up to it. Come on guys and gals. Your team played pretty darned well and won away from home against a good international side. That's brilliant - CELEBRATE! Cut the miserable criticism.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I missed the match but was listening to phone-in afterwards. Without knowing the score the first calls I heard suggested that England had lost or not played well. X wasn't doing this; Y can't play there; Z is not up to it. Come on guys and gals. Your team played pretty darned well and won away from home against a good international side. That's brilliant - CELEBRATE! Cut the miserable criticism.
Click to expand...

Most just aren't interested. Those that are like to be hypercritical, maybe it makes them feel good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top