My take on the England/France Game

[Jimi]

Being a member of the England Haters, and also having watched the game twice today, I feel obligated to chip in my two cents on the England collapse.

To be honest, I really think France controlled the game with the exception of the initial moments when both teams were kind of cautious. England never posed any major threat besides their goal and the break that led to their penalty. Once the French got their flow right, they had England on their heels constantly, especially during the second half. If not for some errant last passes at the edge of the box, and possibly decent defending from King, France might have scored earlier and more often in the second half. As for the English offense..it pretty much stank if you ask me. It seems like British soccer has always had problems attacking down the middle, and it was evident today...
Wayne Rooney was really a mess today. Don't get me wrong, the kid has, and exhibited superior ball control today..but he needs to control his emotions and watch his elbows and crazy tackles. Needless to say, he should have passed before he got taken down for that penalty cos Vassell had a simple finish waiting. Rooney also seems to have this tendency to run into the thick of defenders, instead of running into space when on the ball. Beckham was so so, and was largely annonymous. On the French side of things, what can I say?..Zidane did his thizzle when it counted and they really should have scored more goals if those last passes in the box came through.. By the way Lizarazu runs like a headless chicken when he has the ball. Anyway, England is probably in mourning now but no sweat if they beat Croatia and Switzerland, they should be fine..But then again this is England we are talking about folks.

[Chief Bambostic]

Being a member of the England Haters, and also having watched the game twice today, I feel obligated to chip in my two cents on the England collapse.

To be honest, I really think France controlled the game with the exception of the initial moments when both teams were kind of cautious. England never posed any major threat besides their goal and the break that led to their penalty. Once the French got their flow right, they had England on their heels constantly, especially during the second half. If not for some errant last passes at the edge of the box, and possibly decent defending from King, France might have scored earlier and more often in the second half. As for the English offense..it pretty much stank if you ask me. It seems like British soccer has always had problems attacking down the middle, and it was evident today...
Wayne Rooney was really a mess today. Don't get me wrong, the kid has, and exhibited superior ball control today..but he needs to control his emotions and watch his elbows and crazy tackles. Needless to say, he should have passed before he got taken down for that penalty cos Vassell had a simple finish waiting. Rooney also seems to have this tendency to run into the thick of defenders, instead of running into space when on the ball. Beckham was so so, and was largely annonymous. On the French side of things, what can I say?..Zidane did his thizzle when it counted and they really should have scored more goals if those last passes in the box came through.. By the way Lizarazu runs like a headless chicken when he has the ball. Anyway, England is probably in mourning now but no sweat if they beat Croatia and Switzerland, they should be fine..But then again this is England we are talking about folks.

I think you anaylsis is biased. England played well and deserved to win the game. I think there defensive display was majestic and the French were so desperately clueless on how to break England down that all time greats like Zidane were reduced to making shots that were so hopeless that not only birds but even planes would be worried about getting hit. Rooney was England's main attacking threat and I think it was a mistake taking him off because he was the one England played that would have forced France to keep and eye on their defence while they were ceaselessly attacking. Rooney could have helped England seal the game if he was kept on after the missed penalty. Yes he has a temparent, that was why players like play-acting players like Makelele kept condescendingly slapping him on the head or face to incite a reaction out of him.

You would not think that I actually support France (I was born there), but the French really didn't deserve to draw that game, let alone win it. Zidane showed again that he is a big game player by sticking away that free-kick. Remember that France, though they eqaulised had not managed to penetrate the England defence and it was the only error in the English defence the whole game (Gerrard's poor back pass) that cost England the game.

[Jimi]

Even though I am not a fan of England, my analysis is pretty much spot on. I don't know what game you watched MR BAMBOSTIC, but it was clear to see that France controlled majority of the game. The England defense was the only bright spot for them the whole game. To be honest, I really wouldn't be suprised if England sqeaked by the Swiss, only to lose to Croatia(Croatia ain't no cakewalk ya know)..thereby crashing out in the first round.

[wale]

the result is not fair for the loser of the game
great game but england did not finish them off when their had the chance u cant give a team like france hope when things are not going their way.
this is a good lesson that willl help the english team as their continue to grow for the WC.

[WINNERMAN]

England made things very difficult for the french despite the gulf in player quality.You dont lose anything by giving them due credit.

[Molue Conductor]

Even though I am not a fan of England, my analysis is pretty much spot on. I don't know what game you watched MR BAMBOSTIC, but it was clear to see that France controlled majority of the game. The England defense was the only bright spot for them the whole game. To be honest, I really wouldn't be suprised if England sqeaked by the Swiss, only to lose to Croatia(Croatia ain't no cakewalk ya know)..thereby crashing out in the first round.

jimi England obviously CHOSE to play defensive and sit on thir 1-0 lead. and they played it very well. it almost worked. but in the end
Zidane 2 - England 1

[Chief Bambostic]

Even though I am not a fan of England, my analysis is pretty much spot on. I don't know what game you watched MR BAMBOSTIC, but it was clear to see that France controlled majority of the game. The England defense was the only bright spot for them the whole game. To be honest, I really wouldn't be suprised if England sqeaked by the Swiss, only to lose to Croatia(Croatia ain't no cakewalk ya know)..thereby crashing out in the first round.

We watched the same game Jimi. What your comments show however that you find it difficult to appreciate defensive soccer. Was anything I said incorrect? Were France not looking like they had run out of ideas almost to desperation? Did England not hurt France on the break thorugh Wayne Rooney? Look my friend, England play was tactically flawless - until David Beckham missed the penalty. If that had gone in, people would be on here declaring how tactically astute Sven Goran Erickson is by beating the second best team in the world with a team that someone on this thread described as possessing much less talent...

[YUJAM]

Chief:
You do not win games by bunkering down in defense while the opposition brings the game to you.

In my view, the Gods of soccer will always turn against a team that adopts this mentality. If the opposition brings the ball to your half the whole game, then they deserve to win it. If France dominated the game, then they deserved to win. It is that simple.

[txj]

And you are so simplistic you should change your username to
SIMPLICE!

Chief:
You do not win games by bunkering down in defense while the opposition brings the game to you.

In my view, the Gods of soccer will always turn against a team that adopts this mentality. If the opposition brings the ball to your half the whole game, then they deserve to win it. If France dominated the game, then they deserved to win. It is that simple.

[YUJAM]

Simple but correct! We dont need to complicate matters
England deserved to lose the game cuz France dominated them. Full stop!

And you are so simplistic you should change your username to
SIMPLICE!

Chief:
You do not win games by bunkering down in defense while the opposition brings the game to you.

In my view, the Gods of soccer will always turn against a team that adopts this mentality. If the opposition brings the ball to your half the whole game, then they deserve to win it. If France dominated the game, then they deserved to win. It is that simple.

[txj]

YUJAM
In the modern game there are three broad approaches- the attacking, defensive and middle-of-the road. You assess every match and team in the context in which their game is played.
To do otherwise is simplistic, not correct. Being simple is not synonymous with being correct. Indeed it leaves one at the risk of being called a simpleton

[YUJAM]

TXJ:
Call me a simpleton all you want. But I guess, I can turn around and call you a simpleton for not having the ability to look at the bigger picture as regards to my contributions here. How many times have we had in depth discussions about technical aspects of the game, yet you turn around and call me a simpleton because you disagree with my view? Perhaps you are the one being overly simplistic today. Please check urslef b4 making ur self-righteous assumptions.

Anyway, my point stands. A team that dominates their opponent thoroughly deserves to win a game and more often than not the Gods of soccer will smile on the team that dominates and creates the most opportunities; free kicks, corner kicks etc etc. France did exactly that and one had to wonder during the game, when France's dominance would pay off. Turns out that it did pay off, but it took all game for this to happen.

France dominated and deserved to win. Why is this so difficult for u to comprehend?

[Coach]

Football is a game of two halves, this is its one consistency, irrespectiove of the personnel who take the field, the season, the country, the climiate, the game is played over two 45 periods. England, the creators of the beautiful game, so we are told, and presumably, the author of its legislation, continue to reject this rule.

Why is the world so suprised England collapsed within touching distance of the finishing line. Cast your eyes back to world cup qualification, 2002. Trailing to Greece, and rightly so, up steps David 'Big Wallop', theregoes the ball into the back of the net, and off go the English to Korea. No injustice there was it, I didnt find myself drowning in a sea of moan from the English then, nor any compassion towards the Greeks, rather we were reminded that football is a game of 2 halves, played over 90 minutes, and one must play for 90 minutes to ensure his rewards.

At the end of the day, England got what they deserved. Too many times, I have witnessed the 3 Lions, play kitty cat cat, get a lucky goal, and sit back in the hope that for all their opponents efforts, their defence wont be breeched. Argentina 2002, 1-nil up from a dodgy penalty, we saw 2 banks of 4, and a 'come and have a go if you think your hard enough' approach from the English. Indeed the Argies did have a go, and funnily enough, they weren't hard enough. But you cant expect to profit from this minimalistic approach all the time. This isnt premiership football, where you have an Alex Rae blasting the ball into row Z at every opportunity, thus ensuring Wolves get the 3points off United, this is international football. Players are supposedly, international quality, and should be able to put their foot on the ball, and keep possession. After going one up, just as they did against Argentina, Brazil and practicularly everybody else, apart from Iceland, they sat back, gave the ball away, and hoped Lady Luck was wearing the St Georges flag.

Im sorry but i do not believe England played football in the second half, 11 men simply running back out of the tunnel doesnt garuntee you your share of the spoils. If they dont want to learn how to play football at international level, then there'll come a time when there defensive play, will prove defenceless, as it did aginst France.

[Coach]

On another note, I question the need for a Viera and Makele partnership in the centre of France's midfield. With Zidane straying from the left hand side, this left Lizarazu exposed, and had England had a fullback more capable of pushing forward than Gary Neville, who's limits seem to stop at tying his shoelaces, they could've capitalised on this tactical flaw.

Surely Pires over on the left, Zidane in the centre, and perhaps Saha, Rothen (in which case Pires would be moved back to the right) and dare i suggest, Sylvain Wiltord, would've been better suited. They weren't getting enough men forward to punish their opposition, which ultimately resulted in them pumping the ball into the box in typical English style.

With Viera sitting deep and initiating team moves, their labours could prove more fruitful.

[YUJAM]

Twice as many corners, three times as many shots, dominance in possession, three times as many shots on goal,plus the fact that barthez had to make 2 saves of which 1 was the Beckham pk while James had to make 7 saves, and folks act surprised that England lost or even try to argue that England should've won?

Team Totals
France /England
Goals 2 1
Assists - 1
Shots 15 5
Shots On Goal 6 2
Fouls 16 18
Fouls Suffered 18 16
Corners 5 2
Offsides 3 1
Yellow Cards 2 3
Red Cards - -
Saves 2 7
Penatlies Received 1 1
Penalties Missed - 1
Penalties Given 1 1
Penalties Saved 1 -
Time Of Possession (%) 52 48

[Gooner1]

Don't mind these England Shriners. Please, how many times have you seen an England team launch attack after attack?
They can't even do the technical basics right such as keep ball.
They were technically inferior that day. Bottom line, for all their mouf, they ain't good enough.

[Waffiman]

Being a member of the England Haters, and also having watched the game twice today, I feel obligated to chip in my two cents on the England collapse.

To be honest, I really think France controlled the game with the exception of the initial moments when both teams were kind of cautious. England never posed any major threat besides their goal and the break that led to their penalty. Once the French got their flow right, they had England on their heels constantly, especially during the second half. If not for some errant last passes at the edge of the box, and possibly decent defending from King, France might have scored earlier and more often in the second half. As for the English offense..it pretty much stank if you ask me. It seems like British soccer has always had problems attacking down the middle, and it was evident today...
Wayne Rooney was really a mess today. Don't get me wrong, the kid has, and exhibited superior ball control today..but he needs to control his emotions and watch his elbows and crazy tackles. Needless to say, he should have passed before he got taken down for that penalty cos Vassell had a simple finish waiting. Rooney also seems to have this tendency to run into the thick of defenders, instead of running into space when on the ball. Beckham was so so, and was largely annonymous. On the French side of things, what can I say?..Zidane did his thizzle when it counted and they really should have scored more goals if those last passes in the box came through.. By the way Lizarazu runs like a headless chicken when he has the ball. Anyway, England is probably in mourning now but no sweat if they beat Croatia and Switzerland, they should be fine..But then again this is England we are talking about folks.

I think you anaylsis is biased. England played well and deserved to win the game. I think there defensive display was majestic and the French were so desperately clueless on how to break England down that all time greats like Zidane were reduced to making shots that were so hopeless that not only birds but even planes would be worried about getting hit. Rooney was England's main attacking threat and I think it was a mistake taking him off because he was the one England played that would have forced France to keep and eye on their defence while they were ceaselessly attacking. Rooney could have helped England seal the game if he was kept on after the missed penalty. Yes he has a temparent, that was why players like play-acting players like Makelele kept condescendingly slapping him on the head or face to incite a reaction out of him.

You would not think that I actually support France (I was born there), but the French really didn't deserve to draw that game, let alone win it. Zidane showed again that he is a big game player by sticking away that free-kick. Remember that France, though they eqaulised had not managed to penetrate the England defence and it was the only error in the English defence the whole game (Gerrard's poor back pass) that cost England the game.

While you make some good points about how well England defended, you forget France was the team that wanted to win, they came out and attacked. England scored against the run of play and proceeded to hod on to what they had. It was a calculated risk and they paid dearly for it.

When you chose to defend so deep in a game of football, you run the risks of mistakes which may have scoring consequencies because such mistakes will be in and around your penalty area. When you have a player like Zidane around, you also run a high risk of being punished.

IMHO, England got what what deserved - nothing. If they wanted something, they should have attacked more and maybe then they would have deserved something from the game. I always favour the team which tries to balance attack with defending. I love and enjoy positive football.

Do not get me wrong, I love to see great defending but in the context of last Sunday's game, I am not impressed. If England had been reduced to 10 men, I would have said such negative tactics were justified and commendable. In the light of the fact that England chose to hold on to what they had, I say they got what they deserved - nothing.

[tolahs]

I second Waffiman, whenever players play by your 18yd line: you're losing the midfield. Makelele & Veira made more attacking runs than their counterparts not to mention Zidane & Pires.
France were more balanced and deserved to win.

[anointed]

We are talking about our opinions and emotions regarding defensive footie but we 4get that there's no fifa law aganist def footie.

May be we should conclude by saying we deseve 2 lose 2 Italy in 1994 too.

[theDunamis]

We watched the same game Jimi. What your comments show however that you find it difficult to appreciate defensive soccer. Was anything I said incorrect? Were France not looking like they had run out of ideas almost to desperation? Did England not hurt France on the break thorugh Wayne Rooney? Look my friend, England play was tactically flawless - until David Beckham missed the penalty. If that had gone in, people would be on here declaring how tactically astute Sven Goran Erickson is by beating the second best team in the world with a team that someone on this thread described as possessing much less talent...

CB, I agree with your point there. A couple of us (moi included) do not appreciate defensive soccer. We recognize it, and know that it works effectively at its height, but it just aint pretty to watch, hence unappreciated in my quarters. However, I similarly do not appreciate the Real Madrid extreme as well, and at the end of the day I think it shud be about balance.

[camex]

I will agree with Yujam. When you choose to defend a mistake can easily cost you the game, especially at the end when the defneders are tired. If Englans really wanted to win the game, Roonet should have stayed on the pitch. He was the most potent force upfront.