- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:32 am to adammwilson
quote:
Italy passed better and set themselves up better but most of their shots were not even close.
Italy had 20 shots on goal.
England had 4.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:44 am to WarSlamEagle
I'd say at least 10 of Italy's shots were worthless easy catches by joe hart.
Not that I'm defending England's game, but Italy didn't exactly impress either to me.
Not that I'm defending England's game, but Italy didn't exactly impress either to me.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:48 am to Jumbeauxlaya
it did not look like either team wanted to get to the semis
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:50 am to adammwilson
quote:
you think getting to the quarters with a brand new coach and numerous injuries is a joke?
Dude, don't act like they had to do a lot to get to the qtrs. They beat 2 bad teams and tied 2 good teams and were lucky to do that.
Oh, but you don't believe in luck in sports, whatever that means. Of course luck exists. It's not something you can agree/disagree on, it just is.If you watched the games and aren't biased or stupid, you could see that they just aren't that good. And I pull for England to do well. The brand new coach argument is dumb too. Like that complicated Hodgson 4-4-2 is really going to sink in if he had a little more time to coach em up, please.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:57 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
Italy had 20 shots on goal.
England had 4.
Cassano rolling it to Joe Hart's near post from a bad angle 20 yards out counts a shot on goal. Rooney putting a header over from 6 or 7 yards out. Which is the actual chance?
Posted on 6/25/12 at 11:13 am to RandySavage
Italy dominated the midfield to a shocking degree. Only Rooney seemed to be able to hold the ball for more than 2 or 3 seconds. Every other English player simply had the ball taken right off them like candy from a baby. You all did see how often De Rossi just almost casually took it off Young, Marchisio off Walcott etc etc?
That's Italy's strength and what is continually being effaced in most comments I'm reading.
Also, Italy forced England to pull back attackers to mark not only Pirlo but then De Rossi who seemlessly slipped into the regista role when England tried to pressure Pirlo. That Italy doesn't have to put less technical players on the pitch is where the gap lies between the two teams.
Italy's passing and spacing was on an entirely different level and it was plain to see (even for Macca for god's sake who's normally rather swallow needles than say something positive about Italy).
Italy took a lot of long shots because England packed themselves back even more than Ireland did against them. The long shots were to buy some space against the entire English defense packed inside the 18.
Italy finished very poorly but I'm also seeing a vast under exaggeration of the easy chances Italy created: I haven't seen half of their best chances mentioned once by anyone arguing they didn't create a lot of chances (for example: De Rossi's missed tap in from 3 feet out, Nocerino's near miss right after he came in, Diamante had a couple as good as almost any England generated etc etc etc)
Also, Terry and Lescott played like Champions with a capital C.
There's also some glossing over of the fact that England may have made it within 30 yards or goal in solid possessionless than 5 times in the last 45 minutes of the match.
That degree of domination was shocking for even the most optimistic Italian fans
None of this is to say Italy was massively impressive aside forme the midfield/passing/pressing dominance. Cassano played poorly and the finishing and final passes were poor. Balotelli needed to be a lot more aggressive going after passes into the box. Italy always has a lot of trouble with teams that pack the box. They usually only beat the minnows that France etc beat 10-0 in group stages by scores like 2-0.
Italy will certainly have to cut down on the defensive mistakes (Chiellini being out hurts a lot) and finish chances against Germany to have any chance at all because Germany is better.
However, they're significantly better than England right now and England winning that match, while very possible, would have been about like Greece beating Russia last week.
That's Italy's strength and what is continually being effaced in most comments I'm reading.
Also, Italy forced England to pull back attackers to mark not only Pirlo but then De Rossi who seemlessly slipped into the regista role when England tried to pressure Pirlo. That Italy doesn't have to put less technical players on the pitch is where the gap lies between the two teams.
Italy's passing and spacing was on an entirely different level and it was plain to see (even for Macca for god's sake who's normally rather swallow needles than say something positive about Italy).
Italy took a lot of long shots because England packed themselves back even more than Ireland did against them. The long shots were to buy some space against the entire English defense packed inside the 18.
Italy finished very poorly but I'm also seeing a vast under exaggeration of the easy chances Italy created: I haven't seen half of their best chances mentioned once by anyone arguing they didn't create a lot of chances (for example: De Rossi's missed tap in from 3 feet out, Nocerino's near miss right after he came in, Diamante had a couple as good as almost any England generated etc etc etc)
Also, Terry and Lescott played like Champions with a capital C.
There's also some glossing over of the fact that England may have made it within 30 yards or goal in solid possessionless than 5 times in the last 45 minutes of the match.
That degree of domination was shocking for even the most optimistic Italian fans
None of this is to say Italy was massively impressive aside forme the midfield/passing/pressing dominance. Cassano played poorly and the finishing and final passes were poor. Balotelli needed to be a lot more aggressive going after passes into the box. Italy always has a lot of trouble with teams that pack the box. They usually only beat the minnows that France etc beat 10-0 in group stages by scores like 2-0.
Italy will certainly have to cut down on the defensive mistakes (Chiellini being out hurts a lot) and finish chances against Germany to have any chance at all because Germany is better.
However, they're significantly better than England right now and England winning that match, while very possible, would have been about like Greece beating Russia last week.
This post was edited on 6/25/12 at 11:30 am
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:07 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
England legend Bert Tiddle on England's Euro 2012 performance

quote:
Roy Hodgson: Yes, I applied for the England job but the second I didn't get it I decided it was a twunt's gig. Meanwhile, Roy isn't Harry Redknapp and he proved it. Harry would've had this lot in the finals against Iceland and he wouldn't have paid a penny of tax in doing it. After they got knocked out, I texted Harry to see what legendary insult he had for Hodgson and he texted back "Xkqd rtusy" because he still doesn't know how to text or spell. Everyone knows that a 4-4-2 is worse than no formation at all and that's exactly what Harry would've brought. Plus Harry's jowls make Hodgson's look unattractive by comparison.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 9:20 pm to BobLoblaw
Are coaches with massive jowls the only ones that make up the FA's recruiting pool before they even start looking at a coaches results?
Posted on 6/25/12 at 10:01 pm to ohiovol
quote:
Italy had more pressure, but their forwards looked awful.
I'm not sure I've ever seen so many pointless crosses in a game. No one seemed to care enough to look for a target or find the ball.
No doubt but that's Balotelli for you isn't it?
Posted on 6/25/12 at 10:02 pm to WarSlamEagle
quote:
Italy had 20 shots on goal.
link? I found 8 to 1. Plus I agree with Savage there is a strong difference between chances and real chances.
This post was edited on 6/25/12 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 6/25/12 at 10:06 pm to mynamebowl
quote:
you could see that they just aren't that good.
good enough to be one of the better teams in Euro. People love to say teams aren't good but when it comes down to it there isn't much separation. Let's think about the Euro's- Only two teams really stand out- Germany and Spain. They are pretty much alone at the top and then there are a few other teams like Italy, France, England.
quote:
The brand new coach argument is dumb too. Like that complicated Hodgson 4-4-2 is really going to sink in if he had a little more time to coach em up, please.
I'm talking about understanding players, knowing strengths and weaknesses, how best to use players, etc. It's more than just what formation to use. Alot goes into coaching/managing.
I notice you didn't mention the injuries.
This post was edited on 6/25/12 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 6/25/12 at 11:37 pm to adammwilson
quote:
Only two teams really stand out- Germany and Spain
Even those two don't dominate. Spain drew Italy, scored a late winner against Croatia, and generally created nothing outside of the Xabi Alonso's header against France.
Germany were holding on for dear life against Portugal, nipped a Dutch team that didn't even show up, and scored a late winner after they could have easily been down a goal and a man against Denmark.
One of the things that makes soccer so great is how close the good teams generally are and the variation of styles teams can play. Like I said in another post at some point teams that could pass and possess the ball somehow became automatically far superior to the ones who could defend and finish. The object of the game is too score the most goals, not complete the most passes, and the team who does that is the team that deserves to win.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 11:42 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Even those two don't dominate. Spain drew Italy, scored a late winner against Croatia, and generally created nothing outside of the Xabi Alonso's header against France.
agreed. Spain are not playing as well as they did when they won the WC in '10.
quote:
One of the things that makes soccer so great is how close the good teams generally are and the variation of styles teams can play. Like I said in another post at some point teams that could pass and possess the ball somehow became automatically far superior to the ones who could defend and finish. The object of the game is too score the most goals, not complete the most passes, and the team who does that is the team that deserves to win.
agreed I'm sick of hearing people moan on and on about passes being completed and how wonderful it is. That's not the point of the game. Passing doesn't win games.
Posted on 6/25/12 at 11:54 pm to adammwilson
quote:
agreed I'm sick of hearing people moan on and on about passes being completed and how wonderful it is. That's not the point of the game. Passing doesn't win games.
Obviously it is an effective strategy given what Spain have won recently.
However my problem is if Spain have 900 passes around the middle of the field and create three or four real chances and don't take them and team x have 150 passes but create one good chance and take it everyone will say oh they got lucky or they didn't deserve it or Spain were the better team. Yes, they were the better passing/possessing team but like you said that's not the only thing that matters.
Popular
Back to top


2







