In my opinion, commentators and analysts from so many networks are committing somewhat of a fallacy in comparing Guillermo Ochoa's saves against Brazil today, and particularly his save on Neymar's header, in the 26th, if I'm not mistaken, minute of Brazil - Mexico 0-0, with Gordon Banks' performance in Brazil - England 1-0, also on the second matchday of the group stage, at the 1970 World Cup.
Yeah, sure, the saves are similar, and they both happened against Brazilian headers bound to go into the net, originating from overhyped players, but I'd say I've seen a save, just as good, from Algerian goalkeeper M'Bolhi, against Belgium, just one match before, at this very World Cup.
Nobody praised that one as much, though, maybe because Algeria lost, or just maybe because it was Algeria (and Belgium) playing.
So, cool it, people, with the superlatives. It's not just the Brazilian forwards that can execute good headers.
As a matter of fact, Neymar's header wasn't that good of a header, to begin with.
A good (as in perfectly executed) header, from the distance from which Neymar executed his, is always unbeatable, given the enormous size of the goal.
I'm not saying Ochoa did not do extremely well. But it's almost like a penalty, when a dangerous header goes on target. When such a strike is taken really well, the goalkeeper can do practically nothing to prevent it from going in.
Thinking about this in different terms, I would say Ochoa did, actually, a lot better than Banks.
Mexico did not lose said match, whereas England sadly did.
Ochoa did not let in one single goal during this match, whereas Gordon Banks sadly did.
So, there, that was, pardon my English, a quite silly, and totally unnecessary, comparison, that most very likely not even Ochoa would appreciate too much!
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Sunday, 15 June 2014
Disappointing English Performance
English football has a ton of money, and even more prestige.
But what it doesn't have is good young talent.
Their best young prospect 10 years ago, Wayne Rooney, has proven in this match to have matured to be a forward who cannot hit the target from 10 metres out, with an open, gaping net. (Yes, I am referring to his chance to make it 2-2 in the 62nd minute.)
And their new young prospects, Raheem Sterling and Daniel Sturridge, look very crude and uneven.
Even though Sturridge scored, it was surely because of uncharacteristic Italian bad defending - after just going ahead, too, how unusual for an Italian squad! (- But this is a squad managed by cesare prandelli, so...) - rather than because of English prowess.
Italy played more attacking football than expected, particularly in the sweltering heat of Manaus, in the Amazonian area of Brazil, but England almost matched them. Except for scoring that second goal (- but they came close).
The only ray of sunshine for England after this defeat is the fact that Uruguay failed to get any points from the Costa Rica match, which may mean easy matches to come.
But what it doesn't have is good young talent.
Their best young prospect 10 years ago, Wayne Rooney, has proven in this match to have matured to be a forward who cannot hit the target from 10 metres out, with an open, gaping net. (Yes, I am referring to his chance to make it 2-2 in the 62nd minute.)
And their new young prospects, Raheem Sterling and Daniel Sturridge, look very crude and uneven.
Even though Sturridge scored, it was surely because of uncharacteristic Italian bad defending - after just going ahead, too, how unusual for an Italian squad! (- But this is a squad managed by cesare prandelli, so...) - rather than because of English prowess.
Italy played more attacking football than expected, particularly in the sweltering heat of Manaus, in the Amazonian area of Brazil, but England almost matched them. Except for scoring that second goal (- but they came close).
The only ray of sunshine for England after this defeat is the fact that Uruguay failed to get any points from the Costa Rica match, which may mean easy matches to come.
Monday, 3 June 2013
England - UEFA Club Competitions Participants - 2013-2014
Manchester United --> Champions League Group Stage
Manchester City --> Champions League Group Stage
Chelsea London --> Champions League Group Stage
Arsenal London --> Champions League Play-off Round
Tottenham Hotspur (London) --> Europa League Play-off Round
Swansea City --> Europa League Third Qualifying Round
Wigan Athletic --> Europa League Group Stage
Note: Wigan was relegated from the Premier League.
Manchester City --> Champions League Group Stage
Chelsea London --> Champions League Group Stage
Arsenal London --> Champions League Play-off Round
Tottenham Hotspur (London) --> Europa League Play-off Round
Swansea City --> Europa League Third Qualifying Round
Wigan Athletic --> Europa League Group Stage
Note: Wigan was relegated from the Premier League.
Sunday, 12 August 2012
2012.08.12 - The Results
ENGLAND: Community Shield
14:30 -- Chelsea - Manchester City 2-3
[1-0] 40' Fernando Torres
[1-1] 53' Yaya Toure
[1-2] 59' Carlos Tevez
[1-3] 65' Samir Nasri
[2-3] 80' Ryan Bertrand
TURKEY: Super Cup
19:55 -- Galatasaray - Fenerbahce 3-2
[1-0] 19' Umut Bulut
[1-1] 45' + 2' Alex Souza
[2-1] 58' Umut Bulut
[2-2] 66' Dirk Kuyt
[3-2] 90' Selcuk Inan (pen.)
GERMANY: Super Cup
20:00 -- Bayern - Borussia D. 2-1
[1-0] 6' Mario Mandzukic
[2-0] 11' Thomas Muller
[2-1] 75'Robert Lewandowski
14:30 -- Chelsea - Manchester City 2-3
[1-0] 40' Fernando Torres
[1-1] 53' Yaya Toure
[1-2] 59' Carlos Tevez
[1-3] 65' Samir Nasri
[2-3] 80' Ryan Bertrand
TURKEY: Super Cup
19:55 -- Galatasaray - Fenerbahce 3-2
[1-0] 19' Umut Bulut
[1-1] 45' + 2' Alex Souza
[2-1] 58' Umut Bulut
[2-2] 66' Dirk Kuyt
[3-2] 90' Selcuk Inan (pen.)
GERMANY: Super Cup
20:00 -- Bayern - Borussia D. 2-1
[1-0] 6' Mario Mandzukic
[2-0] 11' Thomas Muller
[2-1] 75'Robert Lewandowski
Sunday, 24 June 2012
When England Played Like Italy
This was the only quarter-final match-up that pitted against each other two unbeaten sides. England had two wins and a draw, and Italy had one win and two draws.
That, plus Hodgson's style of coaching his England squad, made the experts declare that, if there was a match that could get to penalties, this would be it.
And it was!
It was also the first match to end 0-0 at this Euro tournament.
But it did not happen because of a lack of scoring chances.
The first half, especially, was full of them.
Only 3 minutes in, for example, Daniele De Rossi had a great shot from about 25-30 metres out, which hit the post to Joe Hart's right.
Then Glen Johnson could not beat Buffon with a sitter from eight meters away, ten minutes into the game.
I should also mention Balotelli's weak run, after Pirlo's great pass allowed the striker a tremendous opportunity to advance through on goal, only to be blocked at the last moment. (Again!... Remember the Spain-Italy match, if you will.)
In the second half, there was another excellent opportunity missed by De Rossi, alone with the goalkeeper, but he probably hurried to kick the ball (and it did not even hit the target), because he thought he was offside.
There were many other scoring chances by the Italians, all squandered. (Italian efficiency was at its worst on this day, and many former Italian coaches were probably stupefied to see all these misses from Squadra Azzurra.)
England, on the other hand, played very much like Italy, defending very effectively and trying to hit on the break. But they also could not finish, as Rooney was not at his goal-scoring best, either. His attempt at a scissor kick proved that beyond any doubt.
Italy, on the other hand, did score once, with five minutes left in the second half of extra time, but it was offside.
So, the two teams remained unbeaten, and had to play penalties to determine who would advance to face Germany in the semifinals. The score, of course, stayed the same, 0-0, after 120+ minutes of game play.
The penalty shootout also seemed to have two different halves to it. There was the pre-Pirlo part, which contained the Italian miss and confident English penalty takers, and the post-Pirlo part, where the English completely lost their concentration. Andrea Pirlo scored a very gutsy, cheeky penalty, a la Panenka (from the Euro '76 final), which apparently suddenly made the Italians feel very confident, and had the opposite effect on the English. If Pirlo had missed, Italy very probably would have had to hope for a miracle to get the win, then.ww
And Pirlo's strike, of course, could have backfired on him, and it could have made him look really silly if Joe Hart hadn't dived too early. But it went in because the goalkeeper never anticipated something like that.
Here's how the shootout went:
-- Italy - Balotelli - goal - 1-0
-- England - Gerrard - goal - 1-1
-- Italy - Montolivo - miss - 1-1
-- England - Rooney - goal - 1-2
-- Italy - Pirlo - goal - 2-2
-- England - Young - miss - 2-2
-- Italy - Nocerino - goal - 3-2
-- England - Cole - miss - 3-2
-- Italy - Diamanti - goal - 4-2 (and England's last penalty kick becomes irrelevant)
Highlights:
That, plus Hodgson's style of coaching his England squad, made the experts declare that, if there was a match that could get to penalties, this would be it.
And it was!
It was also the first match to end 0-0 at this Euro tournament.
But it did not happen because of a lack of scoring chances.
The first half, especially, was full of them.
Only 3 minutes in, for example, Daniele De Rossi had a great shot from about 25-30 metres out, which hit the post to Joe Hart's right.
Then Glen Johnson could not beat Buffon with a sitter from eight meters away, ten minutes into the game.
I should also mention Balotelli's weak run, after Pirlo's great pass allowed the striker a tremendous opportunity to advance through on goal, only to be blocked at the last moment. (Again!... Remember the Spain-Italy match, if you will.)
In the second half, there was another excellent opportunity missed by De Rossi, alone with the goalkeeper, but he probably hurried to kick the ball (and it did not even hit the target), because he thought he was offside.
There were many other scoring chances by the Italians, all squandered. (Italian efficiency was at its worst on this day, and many former Italian coaches were probably stupefied to see all these misses from Squadra Azzurra.)
England, on the other hand, played very much like Italy, defending very effectively and trying to hit on the break. But they also could not finish, as Rooney was not at his goal-scoring best, either. His attempt at a scissor kick proved that beyond any doubt.
Italy, on the other hand, did score once, with five minutes left in the second half of extra time, but it was offside.
So, the two teams remained unbeaten, and had to play penalties to determine who would advance to face Germany in the semifinals. The score, of course, stayed the same, 0-0, after 120+ minutes of game play.
The penalty shootout also seemed to have two different halves to it. There was the pre-Pirlo part, which contained the Italian miss and confident English penalty takers, and the post-Pirlo part, where the English completely lost their concentration. Andrea Pirlo scored a very gutsy, cheeky penalty, a la Panenka (from the Euro '76 final), which apparently suddenly made the Italians feel very confident, and had the opposite effect on the English. If Pirlo had missed, Italy very probably would have had to hope for a miracle to get the win, then.ww
And Pirlo's strike, of course, could have backfired on him, and it could have made him look really silly if Joe Hart hadn't dived too early. But it went in because the goalkeeper never anticipated something like that.
Here's how the shootout went:
-- Italy - Balotelli - goal - 1-0
-- England - Gerrard - goal - 1-1
-- Italy - Montolivo - miss - 1-1
-- England - Rooney - goal - 1-2
-- Italy - Pirlo - goal - 2-2
-- England - Young - miss - 2-2
-- Italy - Nocerino - goal - 3-2
-- England - Cole - miss - 3-2
-- Italy - Diamanti - goal - 4-2 (and England's last penalty kick becomes irrelevant)
Highlights:
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
How the Mighty Have Fallen
France looked very good, after beating the hosts, Ukraine, in a very decisive manner on the second matchday. And, knowing that they looked better than the English, on the first matchday, too, most people would have probably bet on Blanc's team to win the group.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Group D - Possible Scenarios
Here's what could happen on the final matchday of Group D:
1) England wins & Sweden wins:
England 7p, France 4p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 3p
(Ukraine would finish third because of the win against Sweden.)
2) England wins & draw in the other match:
England 7p, France 5p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 1p
3) England wins & France wins
3-1. France wins by a larger margin than England or wins by the same margin as England or wins by a margin of one goal less than England's margin but scores at least two more goals than England in doing so:
France 7p, England 7p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 0p
(France would win the group thanks to better goal difference and/or more goals scored.)
3-2. England wins by a margin larger by two goals or more than France's margin or wins by a margin larger by one goal than France's margin but France does not score more than the number of goals England scores plus one:
England 7p, France 7p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 0p
(England would win the group thanks to better goal difference and/or more goals scored and/or higher UEFA national team coefficient.)
4) draw in the first match & Sweden wins:
England 5p, France 4p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 3p
(France would advance because of the win against Ukraine.)
5) draws in both matches:
France 5p, England 5p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 1p
(France would win the group thanks to better goal difference.)
6) draw in the first match & France wins:
France 7p, England 5p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 0p
7) Ukraine wins & Sweden wins
7-1. France loses by a smaller margin than England or loses by the same margin as England or loses by a margin larger by one goal than England's margin but scores at least two more goals than England in doing so:
Ukraine 6p, France 4p, England 4p, Sweden 3p
(France would advance because of better goal difference and/or more goals scored.)
7-2. England loses by a margin smaller by two goals or more than France's margin or loses by a margin smaller by one goal than France's margin but France does not score more than the number of goals England scores plus one:
Ukraine 6p, England 4p, France 4p, Sweden 3p
(England would advance because of better goal difference and/or more goals scored and/or higher UEFA national team coefficient.)
8) Ukraine wins & draw in the other match:
Ukraine 6p, France 5p, England 4p, Sweden 1p
9) Ukraine wins & France wins:
France 7p, Ukraine 6p, England 4p, Sweden 0p
1) England wins & Sweden wins:
England 7p, France 4p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 3p
(Ukraine would finish third because of the win against Sweden.)
2) England wins & draw in the other match:
England 7p, France 5p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 1p
3) England wins & France wins
3-1. France wins by a larger margin than England or wins by the same margin as England or wins by a margin of one goal less than England's margin but scores at least two more goals than England in doing so:
France 7p, England 7p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 0p
(France would win the group thanks to better goal difference and/or more goals scored.)
3-2. England wins by a margin larger by two goals or more than France's margin or wins by a margin larger by one goal than France's margin but France does not score more than the number of goals England scores plus one:
England 7p, France 7p, Ukraine 3p, Sweden 0p
(England would win the group thanks to better goal difference and/or more goals scored and/or higher UEFA national team coefficient.)
4) draw in the first match & Sweden wins:
England 5p, France 4p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 3p
(France would advance because of the win against Ukraine.)
5) draws in both matches:
France 5p, England 5p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 1p
(France would win the group thanks to better goal difference.)
6) draw in the first match & France wins:
France 7p, England 5p, Ukraine 4p, Sweden 0p
7) Ukraine wins & Sweden wins
7-1. France loses by a smaller margin than England or loses by the same margin as England or loses by a margin larger by one goal than England's margin but scores at least two more goals than England in doing so:
Ukraine 6p, France 4p, England 4p, Sweden 3p
(France would advance because of better goal difference and/or more goals scored.)
7-2. England loses by a margin smaller by two goals or more than France's margin or loses by a margin smaller by one goal than France's margin but France does not score more than the number of goals England scores plus one:
Ukraine 6p, England 4p, France 4p, Sweden 3p
(England would advance because of better goal difference and/or more goals scored and/or higher UEFA national team coefficient.)
8) Ukraine wins & draw in the other match:
Ukraine 6p, France 5p, England 4p, Sweden 1p
9) Ukraine wins & France wins:
France 7p, Ukraine 6p, England 4p, Sweden 0p
Friday, 15 June 2012
Second Elimination
Sweden is out, too.
But are they even worse than the Irish?
Yes and no.
On the one hand, Sweden cannot even finish in third place anymore. The only team they could still reach, in terms of points gained, has the direct-result tie-breaker over the Swedes. This must really stick in their craw.
(At least, Ireland could theoretically beat Italy and still finish third in their group.)
But, on the other hand, Sweden left the competition much more honourably, playing two great matches, in both of which they led at some point but were unfortunate enough to lose all points in the end.
After England led, at half-time, through Carroll's cool header strike (in minute 24), Sweden did wonderfully to gain the lead. Four minutes after the re-start, Mellberg sort of forced Glen Johnson to put the ball into his own net, and it was again he, ten minutes later, who made it 2-1 for Sweden.
At this point, Roy Hodgson was very inspired to introduce Theo Walcott. The youngster scored just minutes after coming on (64), and helped set up Wellbeck's cheeky winner (78).
The Swedes had 12 minutes plus extra injury time to conjure up an equalizer but fell short. Not even Ibrahimovic could inspire them on this day.
England's looking good, knowing they will have a quarter-final spot assured with a draw in their last match, while Ukraine now must beat the British team to advance (which will not be an easy task, as the Swedish players have already seen).
Highlights:
Швеция 2-3 Англия footyroom.com by Futbol2101
But are they even worse than the Irish?
Yes and no.
On the one hand, Sweden cannot even finish in third place anymore. The only team they could still reach, in terms of points gained, has the direct-result tie-breaker over the Swedes. This must really stick in their craw.
(At least, Ireland could theoretically beat Italy and still finish third in their group.)
But, on the other hand, Sweden left the competition much more honourably, playing two great matches, in both of which they led at some point but were unfortunate enough to lose all points in the end.
After England led, at half-time, through Carroll's cool header strike (in minute 24), Sweden did wonderfully to gain the lead. Four minutes after the re-start, Mellberg sort of forced Glen Johnson to put the ball into his own net, and it was again he, ten minutes later, who made it 2-1 for Sweden.
At this point, Roy Hodgson was very inspired to introduce Theo Walcott. The youngster scored just minutes after coming on (64), and helped set up Wellbeck's cheeky winner (78).
The Swedes had 12 minutes plus extra injury time to conjure up an equalizer but fell short. Not even Ibrahimovic could inspire them on this day.
England's looking good, knowing they will have a quarter-final spot assured with a draw in their last match, while Ukraine now must beat the British team to advance (which will not be an easy task, as the Swedish players have already seen).
Highlights:
Швеция 2-3 Англия footyroom.com by Futbol2101
Monday, 11 June 2012
The Slower Giants
Unlike Spain and Italy, in Gdansk, France and England played at a much slower tempo their derby encounter in Donetsk.
Surely, the intense heat in far-Eastern Ukraine contributed to the players' conserving their energy.
France was the better team, but not by much.
In the 30th minute, Lescott opened the scoring with a great header, which reminded fans of the Premier League of his goal against Manchester United that gave Man. City the lead in the title chase, this past April.
But another City player, Samir Nasri, took advantage of a bad decision in an otherwise very well-disciplined English defense, to beat Joe Hart with a shot from just outside the box. 1-1, in the 39th minute, equalizing for France. And the French kept coming.
However, that was to be the final score, because neither the French nor the English risked too much in the second half.
There's no doubt that both teams accepted a draw in supposedly their toughest encounter, waiting to fight for the full three points against the weaker opponents, Ukraine and Sweden.
The man of the match, at least for me, must have been Joleon Lescott. Not only did he score England's goal, but he also deflected into a corner kick the best shot by the French that wasn't a goal. Cabaye, in the 80th minute, may have had Hart beaten with a very powerful shot, but the ball was directed outside of the goal frame by the English defender.
Overall, the result was not unexpected at all, but I'm sure everybody expects better performances than this, at least in the future, from both England and France.
Highlights:
France v England by shmooot
Surely, the intense heat in far-Eastern Ukraine contributed to the players' conserving their energy.
France was the better team, but not by much.
In the 30th minute, Lescott opened the scoring with a great header, which reminded fans of the Premier League of his goal against Manchester United that gave Man. City the lead in the title chase, this past April.
But another City player, Samir Nasri, took advantage of a bad decision in an otherwise very well-disciplined English defense, to beat Joe Hart with a shot from just outside the box. 1-1, in the 39th minute, equalizing for France. And the French kept coming.
However, that was to be the final score, because neither the French nor the English risked too much in the second half.
There's no doubt that both teams accepted a draw in supposedly their toughest encounter, waiting to fight for the full three points against the weaker opponents, Ukraine and Sweden.
The man of the match, at least for me, must have been Joleon Lescott. Not only did he score England's goal, but he also deflected into a corner kick the best shot by the French that wasn't a goal. Cabaye, in the 80th minute, may have had Hart beaten with a very powerful shot, but the ball was directed outside of the goal frame by the English defender.
Overall, the result was not unexpected at all, but I'm sure everybody expects better performances than this, at least in the future, from both England and France.
Highlights:
France v England by shmooot
Monday, 4 June 2012
England - UEFA Club Competitions Participants - 2012-2013
Manchester City --> Champions League Group Stage
Manchester United --> Champions League Group Stage
Arsenal London --> Champions League Group Stage
Tottenham Hotspur (London) --> Europa League Group Stage
Newcastle United --> Europa League Play-off Round
Chelsea London --> Champions League Group Stage
Liverpool FC --> Europa League Third Qualifying Round
Note: Even though they finished the league in a Champions-League-Play-off position, Tottenham Hotspur was automatically relocated to the Europa League because Chelsea, who did not finish in a Champions-League position, won the 2011-2012 Champions League (and in 2012-2013 England was not permitted to enter more than 4 teams in the Champions League).
Manchester United --> Champions League Group Stage
Arsenal London --> Champions League Group Stage
Tottenham Hotspur (London) --> Europa League Group Stage
Newcastle United --> Europa League Play-off Round
Chelsea London --> Champions League Group Stage
Liverpool FC --> Europa League Third Qualifying Round
Note: Even though they finished the league in a Champions-League-Play-off position, Tottenham Hotspur was automatically relocated to the Europa League because Chelsea, who did not finish in a Champions-League position, won the 2011-2012 Champions League (and in 2012-2013 England was not permitted to enter more than 4 teams in the Champions League).
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Capello No Longer England's Coach
Okay, everybody who stays in touch with English football knows that Capello is out as England manager.
This is not bad for him. No, sir. I'm sure Capello has enough money to not give a crap if he ever coaches again. (And I think he did say he was going to retire after this Euro, too, if I'm not mistaken.)
This is bad for England and for national football in that country.
Capello was undoubtedly the most productive manager the English national team had in a long, long time, and possibly ever if one considers just match statistics. So, I'm sure his replacement for this summer's tournament will not do any better than Capello would have done.
I also don't think Capello's departure is just about Terry's captaincy and nothing else.
I think the FA pressured and annoyed Capello on a lot of things.
Whenever Capello coaches a team, he gets results immediately. With England, not so much.
If you ask me, probably the English federation messed with him, not leaving him to do his job in peace, over these four years, and the Terry issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Why would they unilaterally change his team?
Some people just think they rule everyone else.
Thus, I guess the Italian, who won trophies upon trophies with Real Madrid and AC Milan, among others, finally said "Ah, screw it!"
In conclusion, I know one more team I'm not going to bet on to win Euro 2012!...
Oh, and Wenger apparently weighed in on the controversy, saying Capello's replacement should be an Englishman (- see more here).
Okay, fine, Wenger is entitled to his opinion, but what makes him think he should share it with us? I don't give a crap what Wenger thinks about this whole thing, Capello surely doesn't give a crap, Terry or Redknapp are probably indifferent, too, and I would bet that the FA's opinion is that Wenger should just shut up and mind his own business, also.
I guess being like a demi-god at Arsenal ('cause, otherwise, he more than deserved to be fired, based on his results) made Wenger think it's his place to tell the FA what to do and who to hire, too.
Maybe he should win a trophy or two, first, and make people believe that he knows what he's talking about...
This is not bad for him. No, sir. I'm sure Capello has enough money to not give a crap if he ever coaches again. (And I think he did say he was going to retire after this Euro, too, if I'm not mistaken.)
This is bad for England and for national football in that country.
Capello was undoubtedly the most productive manager the English national team had in a long, long time, and possibly ever if one considers just match statistics. So, I'm sure his replacement for this summer's tournament will not do any better than Capello would have done.
I also don't think Capello's departure is just about Terry's captaincy and nothing else.
I think the FA pressured and annoyed Capello on a lot of things.
Whenever Capello coaches a team, he gets results immediately. With England, not so much.
If you ask me, probably the English federation messed with him, not leaving him to do his job in peace, over these four years, and the Terry issue was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Why would they unilaterally change his team?
Some people just think they rule everyone else.
Thus, I guess the Italian, who won trophies upon trophies with Real Madrid and AC Milan, among others, finally said "Ah, screw it!"
In conclusion, I know one more team I'm not going to bet on to win Euro 2012!...
Okay, fine, Wenger is entitled to his opinion, but what makes him think he should share it with us? I don't give a crap what Wenger thinks about this whole thing, Capello surely doesn't give a crap, Terry or Redknapp are probably indifferent, too, and I would bet that the FA's opinion is that Wenger should just shut up and mind his own business, also.
I guess being like a demi-god at Arsenal ('cause, otherwise, he more than deserved to be fired, based on his results) made Wenger think it's his place to tell the FA what to do and who to hire, too.
Maybe he should win a trophy or two, first, and make people believe that he knows what he's talking about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)