Why did the ESPN2 announcers give England such a bad rap while they where playing?

Question

I know England was playing T&T, But that just shows how good T&T are becoming. Would kthe ESPN2 announcers be so critical if it was Brazil and T&T????

Answer 1

For several reasons throughout the match. However, I do agree that they were particularly and overtly critical of England at the end of the match (Especially Balboa. Let me get this out of the way; my favorite ESPN announcers are Shep Messing and Tommy Smyth. The other announcers can be ignored completely. Especially the World Cup "analysts" Wynalda and company.)
First of all, England did not finish on so many chances. They had outshot Trinidad and Tobago by over 10-15 shots and yet they couldn't score until the winding minutes of the match. I mean, how many chances can you ask for really? And while you can say that Hislop has been playing great, if you get very close on goal, you should be able to finish it against any goalie if you are a contender for the World Cup trophy. So, in part, the expectations are higher for England than they are for Sweden, who did tie against T&T as well, but they should've finished the ball.
Second, English defense was very disorganized at times (while the announcers did not really address this, the fact that this happenned justified that they were unimpressed by England..but up to a point.) Glen and John connected way too much for T&T, something that shouldn't have happenned, considering that Trinidad had 10 men behind the ball on nearly every single possession. This showed how weak England can be in front of a team that counterattacks.
However, while these do stand out as disappointing qualities of England's play that shone through, I do not think Balboa's disappointment at the end of the day is justified if the end is taken into light and for various reasons. England should be commended on their excellent passing (Beckham always connected), their penetration of an overcommitted defense, and because they did what mattered in the end, showing that they can finish if under pressure. I mean just compare the game to the game Sweden had and Sweden's a powerhouse as well. The only reason England could not score was because the 10 man T&T defense was always there on corners, free kicks, and set pieces which disrupted where the majority of their plays come from. The other chances off just individual strikes is impressive considering they typically score off of passes from set pieces. I thought it was brilliant that Beckham managed to create a set piece situation out of a strike on his cross to Crouch. Therefore, I do think the fact that ESPN2 did not come out impressed that England was able to come away from T&T, a side that shut out powerhouse Sweden as well, is too harsh and shows the sidedness of their commentators. I mean in the Sweden game their commentator stated that Italy would draw against USA. If one goes off of the way the US played, I think those are very ambitious expectations....and yet the others believe the US could get through round 1 still and yet not impressed with England at all? Then, how do you look positively at the US at all. This is bogus. Down with Balboa and company. Not good announcing at all there. England should not have been played down as they were. Good job to them...they at least will get rewarded justly while the US will be shutout soon.

Answer 2

I think the expectation for England in this game was very high, and England, being smart, kept 4 defenders back and did not have enough men up in the first 3/4 of the game. Also, I thought England was afraid of T&T's speed which is why they kept 4 back. The ESPN2 annoucers want offence, offence, and more offence and did not appreciate the smart game that England played.

Answer 3

i imagine it truly is extra of the fingers that use them than the bits themselves. I do in spite of the undeniable fact that inspire human beings to get their horse comfortable and supple in a straightforward snaffle earlier transferring as a lot as a twisted twine snaffle or a short shank. I favor conserving my 2 3 hundred and sixty 5 days olds contained in the snaffle for a competent 3 hundred and sixty 5 days when I commence them contained in the a breaking halter of direction. i love the snaffle using the undeniable fact that's so straightforward to coach and get decrease back to the basics in. i imagine the issue that maximum individuals are having with a leverage bit is that once their or they hear of a horse that would not reply without delay to the snaffle they sense they ought to flow for a a lot feelier(i comprehend not a note!) bit to get the outcomes they prefer faster. I frown upon that, because the secret to a comfortable, obediant, and supple horse isn't the bit...yet really the fingers that carry them. yet any bit contained in the incorrect fingers, the snaffle protected, can be a weapon of mass destruction.

Answer 4

Higher expectations. If Tunisia played that way, they would have showered them with kudos.

Answer 5

Look at who they were playing.

Answer 6

WELL DESERVED I WOULD'VE THOUGHT, STILL NO PERFORMANCE FROM ENGLAND, DESPITE TWO WINS