Moderator: Community Team
pmchugh wrote:Didn't see that coming lol. Great game, poor defending at set plays from England. Sweden are very average, England will need to improve if they want to do anything in this tourney.
Sniper08 wrote:pmchugh wrote:Didn't see that coming lol. Great game, poor defending at set plays from England. Sweden are very average, England will need to improve if they want to do anything in this tourney.
i think you just quoted the BBC pundits word for wordwalcott pretty much saved englands ass he was great when he came on and welbeck had a magnificant finish, goal of the tourney so far.
Aradhus wrote:
I'm not bitter, I'm just f*ck-ing-Scottish.
Mr Changsha wrote:The key point from the England game was that England showed heart. Yes, the goals we let in were all shades of ridiculous..but we came back brilliantly. First time in a long time I've watched us and actually felt proud of our chaps. A very long time.
On that basis I predict (for isn't that the point of this thread) that we'll beat the Ukraine handsomely, avoid Spain and duff up Italy.
Such is the mind of a chap with a bottle of wine down.
However, I have a question. What to do with Rooney? I say we should continue with 442 for the third game. I also say that both strikers deserve to start. Therefore...where to place Rooney? I say on the left. The chap can play pretty much anywhere and, as Young was pretty much absent there (and neither Downing or Chamberlain would do much better) then Rooney should play on the wing..in a roving role.
Finally..poor Walcott. Superb performance, only three touches (all great), yet he'll be on the bench again. We need Milner in the first half for his defensive attributes, Walcott can't defend for toffee.
JBlombier wrote:As a neutral watcher of the Sweden - England game, I must say that I quite enjoyed it. Lots of action, chances. Very entertaining play by both sides.
And England scored 4 goals, what more can you wish for!
Mr Changsha wrote:The key point from the England game was that England showed heart. Yes, the goals we let in were all shades of ridiculous..but we came back brilliantly. First time in a long time I've watched us and actually felt proud of our chaps. A very long time.
On that basis I predict (for isn't that the point of this thread) that we'll beat the Ukraine handsomely, avoid Spain and duff up Italy.
Such is the mind of a chap with a bottle of wine down.
However, I have a question. What to do with Rooney? I say we should continue with 442 for the third game. I also say that both strikers deserve to start. Therefore...where to place Rooney? I say on the left. The chap can play pretty much anywhere and, as Young was pretty much absent there (and neither Downing or Chamberlain would do much better) then Rooney should play on the wing..in a roving role.
Finally..poor Walcott. Superb performance, only three touches (all great), yet he'll be on the bench again. We need Milner in the first half for his defensive attributes, Walcott can't defend for toffee.
betiko wrote:In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
betiko wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:The key point from the England game was that England showed heart. Yes, the goals we let in were all shades of ridiculous..but we came back brilliantly. First time in a long time I've watched us and actually felt proud of our chaps. A very long time.
On that basis I predict (for isn't that the point of this thread) that we'll beat the Ukraine handsomely, avoid Spain and duff up Italy.
Such is the mind of a chap with a bottle of wine down.
However, I have a question. What to do with Rooney? I say we should continue with 442 for the third game. I also say that both strikers deserve to start. Therefore...where to place Rooney? I say on the left. The chap can play pretty much anywhere and, as Young was pretty much absent there (and neither Downing or Chamberlain would do much better) then Rooney should play on the wing..in a roving role.
Finally..poor Walcott. Superb performance, only three touches (all great), yet he'll be on the bench again. We need Milner in the first half for his defensive attributes, Walcott can't defend for toffee.
So do you expect France not to beat sweden? We have a goal average advantage on you and hopefully we'll keep it. I don t know who is weaker, ukr or sweden.. But our game was a walk in the park vs Ukraine, the goalie made a few great saves, we hit the bar a few times and we got a goal unvalidated.. Hope we'll keep that first place! In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
Timminz wrote:betiko wrote:In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
Nope. No team is guaranteed to advance, yet. Two have been mathematically eliminated.
maxfaraday wrote:Timminz wrote:betiko wrote:In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
Nope. No team is guaranteed to advance, yet. Two have been mathematically eliminated.
You're wrong, France is already qualified.
Whatever happens in the third games we'll still be at least in the first 2, because of the better goal average.
Timminz wrote:maxfaraday wrote:Timminz wrote:betiko wrote:In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
Nope. No team is guaranteed to advance, yet. Two have been mathematically eliminated.
You're wrong, France is already qualified.
Whatever happens in the third games we'll still be at least in the first 2, because of the better goal average.
Nope. For example, if France loses to Sweden without scoring any goals, and Ukraine beats England by a score of, oh let's say, 4-3, then Ukraine and England would move on.
Timminz wrote:maxfaraday wrote:Timminz wrote:betiko wrote:In the meanwhile i think we are mathematically qualified whatever happens in the eng-ukr game
Nope. No team is guaranteed to advance, yet. Two have been mathematically eliminated.
You're wrong, France is already qualified.
Whatever happens in the third games we'll still be at least in the first 2, because of the better goal average.
Nope. For example, if France loses to Sweden without scoring any goals, and Ukraine beats England by a score of, oh let's say, 4-3, then Ukraine and England would move on.
Timminz wrote:Gah! I forgot about the concurrent games at the end of the group stage. What am I going to do for the next 3 hours?
Timminz wrote:I wonder if the commentators will be smart enough to not mention the other game, or if they'll be assholes about it.
Gypsys Kiss wrote:Timminz wrote:I wonder if the commentators will be smart enough to not mention the other game, or if they'll be assholes about it.
they'll be arseholes about.....especially if its a tight group
Army of GOD wrote:Poland has had so many chances to score. They should be up by 2 by now.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users