Dare we??

[Balham Green]

I suppose Vardy was brought on to run at the tiring Colombian defence but we didn't hit long balls over the top or pass to him.

The game against Sweden will be tight and the first goal wins it.

Or even pass in front of him. Vardy is clearly a player who needs the ball in front - not easy to do that at this level.

If (God forbid) anything happened to Kane, I'd be more inclined to use Welbeck as a deputy as he is probably the best of the other 3 at linking play with back to goal, then Rashford, and Vardy as last pick.

However, for this game with Kane assumed fit, I'd replace Alli (not fit) with Sterling and play Rashford in the latter's role. With 3 centre-halves plus Henderson we have ample protection against the Swedes for a bit of adventure - which is what we will need.

Thing is first goal is massive. How much of a risk do you want to take in potentially conceding?
Re Vardy I dont see him as international pedigree myself.

 

[Frank Butcher]

I suppose Vardy was brought on to run at the tiring Colombian defence but we didn't hit long balls over the top or pass to him.

The game against Sweden will be tight and the first goal wins it.

Or even pass in front of him. Vardy is clearly a player who needs the ball in front - not easy to do that at this level.

If (God forbid) anything happened to Kane, I'd be more inclined to use Welbeck as a deputy as he is probably the best of the other 3 at linking play with back to goal, then Rashford, and Vardy as last pick.

However, for this game with Kane assumed fit, I'd replace Alli (not fit) with Sterling and play Rashford in the latter's role. With 3 centre-halves plus Henderson we have ample protection against the Swedes for a bit of adventure - which is what we will need.

Thing is first goal is massive. How much of a risk do you want to take in potentially conceding?
Re Vardy I dont see him as international pedigree myself.

It's all opinion of course, but I'd expect Sweden to set up well organised, two banks of four and five, and looking for breaks or set pieces. So I expect the onus to be very much on us to attack from the off. If we score early I'd expect us to draw them out and win comfortably, but no goal in the first 30 and it will just get tougher.

 

[Balham Green]

I suppose Vardy was brought on to run at the tiring Colombian defence but we didn't hit long balls over the top or pass to him.

The game against Sweden will be tight and the first goal wins it.

Or even pass in front of him. Vardy is clearly a player who needs the ball in front - not easy to do that at this level.

If (God forbid) anything happened to Kane, I'd be more inclined to use Welbeck as a deputy as he is probably the best of the other 3 at linking play with back to goal, then Rashford, and Vardy as last pick.

However, for this game with Kane assumed fit, I'd replace Alli (not fit) with Sterling and play Rashford in the latter's role. With 3 centre-halves plus Henderson we have ample protection against the Swedes for a bit of adventure - which is what we will need.

Thing is first goal is massive. How much of a risk do you want to take in potentially conceding?
Re Vardy I dont see him as international pedigree myself.

It's all opinion of course, but I'd expect Sweden to set up well organised, two banks of four and five, and looking for breaks or set pieces. So I expect the onus to be very much on us to attack from the off. If we score early I'd expect us to draw them out and win comfortably, but no goal in the first 30 and it will just get tougher.

And if they score first they could beat us comfortably? They are strong mentally and physically. Experienced unlike us. They have beaten z Holland and Italy in qualifiers.

 

[rsp4]

Im not sure we can dare tbh.

We may do a Liverpool this year in the Euros. Sneak but then end up playing a real team who show us its men against boys.

Saying that Sweden, Croatia and Russia in front of their home fans shouldnt br counted as forgone conclusions

 

[with menace]

I suppose Vardy was brought on to run at the tiring Colombian defence but we didn't hit long balls over the top or pass to him.

The game against Sweden will be tight and the first goal wins it.

Or even pass in front of him. Vardy is clearly a player who needs the ball in front - not easy to do that at this level.

If (God forbid) anything happened to Kane, I'd be more inclined to use Welbeck as a deputy as he is probably the best of the other 3 at linking play with back to goal, then Rashford, and Vardy as last pick.

However, for this game with Kane assumed fit, I'd replace Alli (not fit) with Sterling and play Rashford in the latter's role. With 3 centre-halves plus Henderson we have ample protection against the Swedes for a bit of adventure - which is what we will need.

Thing is first goal is massive. How much of a risk do you want to take in potentially conceding?
Re Vardy I dont see him as international pedigree myself.

It's all opinion of course, but I'd expect Sweden to set up well organised, two banks of four and five, and looking for breaks or set pieces. So I expect the onus to be very much on us to attack from the off. If we score early I'd expect us to draw them out and win comfortably, but no goal in the first 30 and it will just get tougher.

And if they score first they could beat us comfortably? They are strong mentally and physically. Experienced unlike us. They have beaten z Holland and Italy in qualifiers.

Certainly won't be a stroll in the park but don't think Sweden have the mentality, you could see the fear in their eyes against Germany. I think they'll bottle it.

 

[oldage]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

 

[with menace]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

To be fair the Belgium game was a dead rubber( I bet Belgium wish they'd finished second now) other than that you can only beat who's in front of you. Are we the best team? No.
Is this even the best England team of recent past? No.
How many times have we seen a frankly crap Italian or Argentina side reaching the final though ?
I think that's why we could do it.

 

[slingsbypobble]

Think it's curtains tomorrow TBH. England have not shown that we can compete with big boys yet. Our B team failed against Belgium's B team. More worryingly, very few goals from open play.

Yes Sweden showed fear against Germany, but they're Germany! Sweden are very confident against England and have a great record against us in major tournaments.

My biggest worry is that I cannot pick a passage of fluid, attacking play where we string 3 or 4 decisive passes together at speed in the opposition half. To get past Sweden we will need speed, one of our fastest players is Sterling, but he's misfiring badly. Kane is good but not quick, Vardy is a bit of an unknown quantity in this side and looks like he'll be out with groin strain tomorrow.

Part of me is missing the 'kick and rush' game of old England, even though it got us precisely nowhere. At least it worried the opposition's defence. Now, we do a few sideways and backwards passes outside of the box, and the opposition is perfectly happy to sit deep and let us have possession.

Don't think we've got what it takes I'm afraid: Swe 2-0 Eng

 

[PL2 3DQ]

I think Rose needs to play, he's a natural left footer and Sweden can be exploited in the wide areas in behind. Young nearly always checks back onto his right foot which would give the Swedish defence time to prepare for a cross.

 

[Quinny]

We can dream, but the reality is that so will Russia, Croatia and Sweden. Any one of the four has as good a chance as the rest of making it.

 

[Frank Butcher]

Think it's curtains tomorrow TBH. England have not shown that we can compete with big boys yet. Our B team failed against Belgium's B team. More worryingly, very few goals from open play.

Yes Sweden showed fear against Germany, but they're Germany! Sweden are very confident against England and have a great record against us in major tournaments.

My biggest worry is that I cannot pick a passage of fluid, attacking play where we string 3 or 4 decisive passes together at speed in the opposition half. To get past Sweden we will need speed, one of our fastest players is Sterling, but he's misfiring badly. Kane is good but not quick, Vardy is a bit of an unknown quantity in this side and looks like he'll be out with groin strain tomorrow.

Part of me is missing the 'kick and rush' game of old England, even though it got us precisely nowhere. At least it worried the opposition's defence. Now, we do a few sideways and backwards passes outside of the box, and the opposition is perfectly happy to sit deep and let us have possession.

Don't think we've got what it takes I'm afraid: Swe 2-0 Eng

Gonna be a cracking party around your house ....

 

[Ave IT]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

To be fair the Belgium game was a dead rubber( I bet Belgium wish they'd finished second now) other than that you can only beat who's in front of you. Are we the best team? No.
Is this even the best England team of recent past? No.
How many times have we seen a frankly crap Italian or Argentina side reaching the final though ?
I think that's why we could do it.

Good point - Germany, Argentina & Italy have made it to finals in the past with bog-standard average teams when much better sides went home earlier. This time nobody - literally nobody - look like 'world beaters' although somebody obviously has to be crowned as such. Makes for a fascinating tournament though and exciting for us - I think we can genuinely beat anybody or get beaten by anybody that's left. It really is 'up for grabs'.

 

[with menace]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

To be fair the Belgium game was a dead rubber( I bet Belgium wish they'd finished second now) other than that you can only beat who's in front of you. Are we the best team? No.
Is this even the best England team of recent past? No.
How many times have we seen a frankly crap Italian or Argentina side reaching the final though ?
I think that's why we could do it.

Good point - Germany, Argentina & Italy have made it to finals in the past with bog-standard average teams when much better sides went home earlier. This time nobody - literally nobody - look like 'world beaters' although somebody obviously has to be crowned as such. Makes for a fascinating tournament though and exciting for us - I think we can genuinely beat anybody or get beaten by anybody that's left. It really is 'up for grabs'.

Yes,even if I were neutral this has been the best World Cup for a very long time. Open, entertaining and truly up for grabs. As Southgate said we probably won't get a better chance for a long time.
There's no one we couldn't beat on our day ditto the rest of course , a win tomorrow and we've as real a chance as anyone.

 

[Balham Green]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

To be fair the Belgium game was a dead rubber( I bet Belgium wish they'd finished second now) other than that you can only beat who's in front of you. Are we the best team? No.
Is this even the best England team of recent past? No.
How many times have we seen a frankly crap Italian or Argentina side reaching the final though ?
I think that's why we could do it.

Good point - Germany, Argentina & Italy have made it to finals in the past with bog-standard average teams when much better sides went home earlier. This time nobody - literally nobody - look like 'world beaters' although somebody obviously has to be crowned as such. Makes for a fascinating tournament though and exciting for us - I think we can genuinely beat anybody or get beaten by anybody that's left. It really is 'up for grabs'.

Yes,even if I were neutral this has been the best World Cup for a very long time. Open, entertaining and truly up for grabs. As Southgate said we probably won't get a better chance for a long time.
There's no one we couldn't beat on our day ditto the rest of course , a win tomorrow and we've as real a chance as anyone.

Except for the small point that as seen yesterday Belgium are far better than us as are France and probably Croatia too.

 

[Balham Green]

We beat two weak teams, lost to Belgium and scrapped home against Colombia.
Since 1966 England have promised much but delivered nothing and this is unlikely to change any time soon. I don't rate Southgate .Tin hat at the ready!

To be fair the Belgium game was a dead rubber( I bet Belgium wish they'd finished second now) other than that you can only beat who's in front of you. Are we the best team? No.
Is this even the best England team of recent past? No.
How many times have we seen a frankly crap Italian or Argentina side reaching the final though ?
I think that's why we could do it.

Good point - Germany, Argentina & Italy have made it to finals in the past with bog-standard average teams when much better sides went home earlier. This time nobody - literally nobody - look like 'world beaters' although somebody obviously has to be crowned as such. Makes for a fascinating tournament though and exciting for us - I think we can genuinely beat anybody or get beaten by anybody that's left. It really is 'up for grabs'.

You really think we could beat Belgium or France? Calm down dear.