Ciao Juventina!
My opinion on the England game is that they played a good game, but few considerations have surfaced from their game.
First of all Rooney's red card may have been to excessive and penalized England in their game (then again, Materazzi's red card penalized Italy too... but Italy won)
It is very interesting to see how English fans now admire so much their defensive way of playing (like they do in the Premiership with Liverpool and Arsenal) while they have always complained about the Italians... yet, seems they have learned very well the "counter-attack" play.
I am wondering why Eriksson have kept on the game either Gerrard and Lampard (they both have had a bad day) and he substituted the only player (Cole) that could have changed the game, the only one with some initiative and some clear ideas!
Why not to use Lennon since before Beck problems?
Scolari have shown a LOT better capacity on reading the game (with the men available) compared to the English coach.
About the penalties... I understand the disappointment of the fans... Europe 2204 same story... but Italy have experienced that for the last few years of the WC too, always losing on penalty kicks:
Italy 1990 Italy - Argentina (semi-final)
USA 1994 Italy- Brasil (final)
France 1998 Italy - France (quarter final)
My overall opinion is that England needs a new coach.
2006-07-01 21:42:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by soccer_mind 5
·
5⤊
5⤋
Well, they played an excellent Italian defensive game circa 1970's, 80's, and 90's, if that's what you mean by 'excellent' game. ;0)
Also, playing Golden Goal - though it would be exciting and nice - at this level is like running thouroughbreds into the ground; the clubs holding the contracts on these guys wouldn't let them compete without substantial compensation.
Yes, penalties suck; but in England's case they have been there so many times and lost you would think they would put out more in actual match-time to try and avoid it. The English league game is a stronger, forceful attacking game than anything I've seen Erikkson produce in his tenure (or the three years before). Sure he coached them into 26-6-4 - most of them ugly boring matches - but playing drag-***, tactical ball limits the talents of the players themselves. When push comes to shove they haven't got it and that comes from the leadership itself. They need to be pushed into a passionate state and then let them run amok. That is where England's greatness lays, win or lose, giving their nation great football. Right now they are just businessmen going to their dayjobs and I've seen more heart in third division season matches.
They are lucky they got this far...again.
ps: I'm just a fan of the game (a player too;0)
2006-07-01 16:41:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by colorcanuck 1
·
3⤊
3⤋
Thank you, Juventina. I agree with you 100% on this. England did play well, especially considering they were a man short for most of the game. Penalty kicks are a pathetic way to resolve a match. And you're right, it has much more to do with dumb luck than with actual skill. I believe in sudden death overtime (aka the golden goal rule). Let them continue playing the game until the best team wins, period.
2006-07-01 16:07:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by MacSteed 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
Portugal were lucky, that's the truth and I think that this World Cup stinks, seeing how France have beaten Brasil!
2006-07-01 17:18:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Michael B 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
yes i hate penalty shootouts...they should play till someone scores in overtime. i think that way it's more fair!
2006-07-01 16:04:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by artisiaw 4
·
3⤊
3⤋
Yeah, PK's suck!
I think they ought to keep playing until someone makes a goal, no matter how long it takes!
No PK's in Italy's game! And if it does go that route-BUFFON!!!!
Forza Italia!
2006-07-01 16:04:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by ontheroadagainwithoutyou 6
·
3⤊
3⤋
no, thats a crappy excuse!
go portugal!
2006-07-01 16:01:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mike 2
·
2⤊
4⤋