MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Importance of Sport (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 69, 70, 71 ... 258, 259, 260  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Officially England were playing 3-5-2. This is excellent against weak opposition (up to and including Sweden) but two up front is a luxury against anybody medium-to-strong (as we shall see in the Third Place Final). Actually Southgate (or maybe Harry Kane) realised this because Kane played the one in a 3-5-1-1, with Sterling as the other one. This was flawed however because Kane is not a natural No 10, Sterling is a rubbish No 9 and the two of them never worked out how to rotate properly. Or not rotate at all when circumstances dictated two right up front.

Not that they did all that badly, that wasn’t the problem. As Grant says, it was the midfield not serving up enough bullets. But that itself is not the first problem. Deli Alle and Lingard in combination are too lightweight. With three at the back and a single holding player, one lightweight can be carried in the middle of the park, but not two. This is why Loftus-Cheek should have been preferred to deli Alle. He’s big and he scurries around a lot and that is all that is required. True L-C is not very creative but then, for the last year, Deli Alle hasn't been either.

It was crying out for Wilshere but I am not so partisan as to suppose he ought to have been taken. Lallana was injured. The truth is there is no-one at the moment and England papered over the cracks quite well by zinging it about which produces plenty of set pieces. It could have taken them all the way so let’s not overcarp. If we really were the youngest and least experienced squad at this tournament then it truly is a case of bring it on!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So, to sum up. As everyone in the saloon bar says, we’re not at the top table but only a golden generation away from it. We are the new Belgium. However, as has already been pointed out, the Premier League is not helpful when it comes to producing golden generations. Here’s why

1. You flatter to deceive because you are surrounded by the best players in the world eg Sterling
2. You don’t get enough rest and recuperation time eg Kane
3. You don’t get enough playing time eg Stones
4. You have to get loaned out to get playing time eg Loftus-Cheek
5. You never get to play in any other league eg everyone
6. er ...
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

6. er ...


And it's not 1966 when 1-5 were irrelevant (except to some degree point 2).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ah, judging by results, are we?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
So, to sum up. As everyone in the saloon bar says, we’re not at the top table but only a golden generation away from it.


I am with the saloon bar on this one, the golden generation will rise again. Football will finally be coming home.

It might just take a while.

After all, the future is work in progress, rather than a final end date.
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Ah, judging by results, are we?


What we are doing is raising the question of what was different about '66? Was it simply a case of us having some of the best players in the world at the time, or the most effective system of deploying our resources even if they weren't. We can't say the rest of the world was still catching up with us because Uruguay, Italy, Brazil and West Germany had already won the Cup in previous years.

We had to emerge from a group with Uruguay, France and Mexico, met Argentina in the quarters and Portugal in the semi.

https://englandmemories.com/2016/07/18/englands-1966-world-cup-group-stage/

Not only were your points 1-5 hardly relevant to England then, presumably they weren't to the other countries in those days either.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, the Premier League was hardly relevant in those days, was it? But more generally, 1966 cannot be prayed in aid, not just because of the Host Nation factor, not just because medium powers can occasionally win international tourneys (eg Denmark, Portugal, Greece and, yes, Uruguay) but because England was then temporarily a top nation (vide 1970).

The question before us is, as you say, the most effective way of deploying our resources and it has to be assumed we do temporarily have better-than-average resources. Belgium light, if not a Golden Generation. Which of my 1-5 does not apply to the Belgian players? Surprisingly few actually but even so....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Timekeeper's Corner

Four minutes and twenty seconds elapsed between the French corner going out of play and the subsequent penalty being taken. The ref added three minutes on at the end of the half. (For all stoppages.)
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is something very English about Wimbledon.

We refuse all this continental crap like indoor courts and artificial surfaces....

With adjustable roofs and new strains of grass that play just like indoor surfaces... so effectively destroying serve and volley and making these boring baseliners go on for ever, and ever...

This means that we are the same as every other grand slam but are cunningly maintaining our grass court heritage.

The fifth set Wimbledon rule, of no tie breaks.... will now get dropped.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is something very English about Wimbledon.

I am proud to say I didn't watch a single stroke.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The slower pace favours a certain type of player, in particular Nadal, and the only advantage is commercial. My son stopped watching Wimbledon as soon as the new grass was laid.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I read about this 28-26 final set. I couldn't work out from the context whether this was considered a) unprecedentedly exciting or b) unprecedentedly boring. Since tie-breaks were introduced for all other sets, to put an end to long sets, I presume it is the latter but it's always hard to know with tennis. For instance, re Hatty's post: serve-ace, serve-miss, serve-let, serve-double fault, serve-miss, serve-ace, game Borg, Borg leads 6-5, fourth set, and by two sets to one, drinkies! was once considered exciting, now apparently boring.

My son stopped watching Wimbledon as soon as the new grass was laid.

As I pointed out some time ago, when a new type of grass was laid at the Emirates, a completely new kind of football was inaugurated worldwide. Entirely for the better. But for tennis, we shall see. Perhaps men will turn out to be the new women.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The whole point of sports sponsorship is to place your product in a good light. Today in the Tour de France Team Sky totally dominated proceedings and were roundly booed by everyone. This is partly because of the Froome drug business but mostly because the entire world, except for neo-fascist Little Englanders, think the massively-financed Sky operation is ruining the somewhat boutique-funded world of professional cycling.

Fuck them, we invented the bike so they can go on Shanks's Pony if they don't like it, but I wonder if it's altogether wise from a Rupert Murdoch Business Plan perspective.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Boreades wrote:
I bought Mick a ticket to the First Flat Earth Conference.

Today I discovered that the latest topic of discussion in the flat earth scene is that water isn't made from hydrogen and oxygen. Obviously quite a barmy idea. However, having just watched the video I have to admit that I have no idea how to actually prove that water is H2O off the top of my head. So either way I'll have to educate myself over the next few days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jn53s4UfTY
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Matteo Guendouzi

Looks like David Luiz, plays like Jack Wilshere. He's epic!
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 69, 70, 71 ... 258, 259, 260  Next

Jump to:  
Page 70 of 260

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group