Forum menu
If they’d have had their shooting boots on, France could easily have had 3 or 4 by half time
Engerland didn’t need their shooting boots as they didn’t create any chances
That’s the difference.
So France created 11 chances, 4 on target. England had 8, 1 on target. Therefore France sucked at the easiest part of the game, perhaps the most basic skill, shooting, England didn't create 'any' (odd way to spell eight, but we'll go with it)chances which is by far the more difficult to do.
So England failed at the harder, France at the easier, which makes France better? The other way to look at it is if France had played better, they'd have won. If England had played better, they'd have won. Hmmmm.
That was kind of my point. No offence to you but it's the kind of logic that often occurs in paragraphs that begin with 'Engerland'
He’s very overrated and he’s a show pony into the bargain.
Said Pep, when he got rid...oh, no. Wait.
He is not the kind of player who can fit into any team and prosper, that's true. Those are like Unicorn jizz though. He does well at City because they are able to construct a team that maximises each players effectiveness. Because he has been encouraged to play narrow at City, it's what he defaults to, which does not work with England. When he was younger he would happily raid down the wing and looked much better in the England setup.
I'm not much of a fan of him, never have been. Goes down far too easily and far too often. You can't deny his success at City though.
Can you name me the last player who actually looked like they were ‘achieving their potential’ in an Engerland shirt?
Scholes. Ask anyone who played against him. He was a players player.
Can you name me the last player who actually looked like they were ‘achieving their potential’ in an Engerland shirt?
I rarely watch football, but I used to enjoy watching Joe Cole play.
I remember watching Wolves vs West Ham youth teams when it had its great crop of kids including Rio, Frank, Michael Carrick and Joe Cole. He was a cut above, we thought we’d witnessed the next Maradona! He never really reached the level he showed as a kid.
As a Scot it's good to see we didn't fold as usual, for all the comments that we're 'championship level', we are getting better, most of the players are premiership standard, half a dozen of them playing for the big 6, we have never really done what we should in the last few years, but hopefully we can start playing a bit more like a team and compete more.
As for England, they had an off night and you'd think their tournament had ended, it's the qualifying groups, they're never really pretty, reality is you'll not have so many players having an off night, England have a lot of talent, but that central midfield is a real weakness compared to other competing nations, not that the midfielders aren't good players, they just don't seem to have balance, maybe Bellingham is worth a shot, but that's desperate stuff this late in a tournament!
You can analyse stats all you like, the bottom line is that France are a great, creative, entertaining side to watch, whereas Engerland are absolutely ****ing awful. The gulf in creativity is vast.
Speaking of entertainment, this Portugal v Germany game is brilliant. The polar opposite of last nights woeful bore-fest
Are you not entertained?
It's a tournament, the Germans come alive now. Qualifiers and friendly form is irrelevant for them.
I don’t think France are that entertaining to be honest. Very good side but set up to win the tournament, like all the others, pretty functional. Binners, you’d have self combusted if England drew with Hungary.
Agree re the comments (jonv) comparing international football to the Champions League / top European clubs. Standard is lower. It’s maybe why people think England should be better - the players look better than they are as they’re surrounded by better players.
You can analyse stats all you like, t
I know, right, it's tough when actual evidence undermines your argument.
France are good. They should be, given the advantages they have in demographics. Although when you look at where the players play. Their left back is from Everton! Not even top 6!
The gulf in the two or three star players is vast.
Portugal sloppy and error prone. Germany frantic and error prone. It's a barnburner but hardly great football.
They should be, given the advantages they have in demographics.
What is that supposed to mean?
Nelson Semodo is having a shocker!
Portugal sloppy and error prone. Germany frantic and error prone. It’s a barnburner but hardly great football
It’s ****ing great to watch!
I’m guessing you’re a fan of Italian football? 😉
Italy are the only side who’ve clicked thus far, although they’re in a pretty easy group.
That’s because Mancini is running the national squad like an EPL squad, in a very very un-Italian manner
Serie A is great for people who regard football as a game of chess, but **** me it’s boring
The FA should be looking at this German side (and those of bygone eras) and comparing it to the current England set up. It really is boys against men physically. England seem to breed a certain type of midfield/attacker. If you’re not nimble, small and fast you’re out. Yes, they’re successful at a club level, mostly because they’re being fed by these strong midfield international players. Kante obviously the exception to this rule, but we don’t have one of him either.
I remember when England were a big strong team, they never did much then either.
What is that supposed to mean?
Heartbreaking as it is for football fans but the single best predictor of the outcome of league football is the wage bill. For international it's demographics like population, GDP.etc.
It’s ****ing great to watch!
It's exciting. In a smashup derby kind of way.
Neither team could mark a garden gnome or track the movement of a snail. Passes misplaced, miscontrolled. Neither team could tackle so they settled for kicking lumps out of each other. All germany had to do was slow the game down, keep the ball, kill the game off. So they gave Portugal the ball as much as possible, let them back in.
’m guessing you’re a fan of Italian football?
A) there is no such thing.
B) Christ, no.
Serie A is great for people who regard football as a game of chess, but **** me it’s boring
Pretty sure I just read it was the highest scoring league per game this year?
Edit: according to the Guardian anyway
Anyone surprised to see an Italian team that prefer attack as the best form of defence at these Euros cannot have been paying close attention to Serie A, which had the highest goals-per-game average among Europe’s top five leagues in 2020-21.
Don’t you be letting facts get in the way of Binners’ ranting.
Facts? Pfft! Massively overrated
Does this mean I have to pretend it’s the 90’s and start watching Italian football again?
Sunday morning? Channel 4? 😃
Everyone else watching Serie A again then?
The trick was to watch the Saturday show with the previous weeks goals rather than the Sunday live game, which could often be, er, tactical. Ok, 0-0!
Sunday morning?
I remember Sunday afternoon? Late 80’s early 90’s?
Unless you had Sky it was the only live football on the telly. How things have changed!
Not really - you still need Sky and now BT Sport for domestic leagues. Poxy FA Cup and Scottish Cup on cooncil telly.
spain poland?
spain 82% possession, and win 2-1, the final score being incidental to the possession.
and theyre off......
I remember Sunday afternoon? Late 80’s early 90’s?
It might well have been Sunday afternoon. I just remember watching it every week in a befuddled post-ecstasy haze on the comedown from a massive Saturday night
I may need to start taking ecstasy again to fully appreciate Italian football. Result! 😃
I just hope the premier League are watching how VAR can be made to work reasonably well
It might well have been Sunday afternoon. I just remember watching it every week in a befuddled post-ecstasy haze on the comedown from a massive Saturday night
Anyone else think James "Espresso-and-a-newspaper" Richardson should have been given a Tour de France presenting gig?
I just remember watching it every week in a befuddled post-ecstasy haze on the comedown from a massive Saturday night
Most of what you say here about football reads like you’ve written it after taking drugs. It’s nearly all utter shite.
Football Italia:
Peter Brackley and Ray Wilkins best commentary double act.
Butch: He just turned on a sixpence.
Brackley: Y'know they don't make them anymore.
Don’t you be letting facts get in the way of Binners’ ranting.
Oh, yeah. Sorry. Erm, ManU something! Moanrinho something! Clattenburg, grumble! Bollocks. I've run out.
Oh come on Bravissimo. Lighten up. I know you didn’t qualify and you support a mid-table side but you can’t suck lemons all your life 😃
Anyone surprised to see an Italian team that prefer attack as the best form of defence at these Euros cannot have been paying close attention to Serie A, which had the highest goals-per-game average among Europe’s top five leagues in 2020-21.
Does this make sense? I'm not sure it does. Are they saying Italy can't attack and can't defend? If they attack as a form of defence and they are the highest scoring league, that's means their defence is no bueno. If the attack is the best form if defence, and their defence is turdesque, that mean their attack is also merde, no?
So Alaba steps on a guy's foot in the box. Penalty. Moreno gets his foot stepped on in the box, VAR takes a look, decides it's a pen. Ref agrees.
Sterling gets his foot trodden on in the box, nada. What exactly is the point of VAR if it isn't used consistently?
Heartbreaking as it is for football fans but the single best predictor of the outcome of league football is the wage bill. For international it’s demographics like population, GDP.etc.
That doesn't apply for Czechoslovakia 76, Denmark 92, Greece 04 etc. Too frequent to be statistical outliers
How does Argentina's population and poor GDP compare to England, France or Germany??
Sterling gets his foot trodden on in the box, nada. What exactly is the point of VAR if it isn’t used consistently?
Brexit.
That doesn’t apply for Czechoslovakia 76, Denmark 92, Greece 04 etc. Too frequent to be statistical outliers
You'd have to look at who they played and what the results were before you can say they are outliers. Or frequent.
Some countries do consistently over or under perform their demographics. Brazil is the best example. But it's consistent.
Spain are a completely different team now. They've lost the midfield maestros that used the tikki talks to kill games and put opponents to sleep. They dont attack down the centre, it's all wing play and cross balls for the forwards, and while they actually have forwards now, they aren't great ones. Stones' header from yesterday was miles ahead of anything Morata or Morano could produce.
So the at this stage a Germany Italy final might be my first bet (figure of speech as I don't bet).
You’d have to look at who they played and what the results were before you can say they are outliers. Or frequent.
The point is that your theory doesn't work if major championships are won by teams that don't fit in with your theory . It's happened far too often.
Your demographic/GDP theory would have the USA winning every World Cup. Total nonsense. How do explain the Netherlands, Denmark, the current Belgian team (and the mid 80s one), Yugoslavia in the late 80s/early 90s ?
The point is that your theory doesn’t work if
A) it ain't my theory B) it is statistically sound, not a theory.
There are are about 8? Factors that go into it. From memory, population is the single biggest, National income is second, international experience is 3rd. Can't remember what the others are.
This does not mean that ranking highest in those measures mean you will win every game. That's not how stats work. Those are, however, highly correlated with international success and are the biggest single predictors.
I kept it simple because I really didn't want to type out a treatise. Anyway, in the measures, France should be better than England and they are, almost exactly as much as they should be.
does no-one google anymore? First hit
I'm going to read it properly later, but before googling I wondered on 2 other factors
1/ history or pedigree - we know Brazil is football obsessed (I interviewed a BR candidate for a role recently and one of the questions he asked us was whether we had a works football team! - he got the job too) so something about how ingrained the culture is. I mean, CN and India both have massive populations but don't have a long football pedigree.
2/ Star players - not only in their own right but who can lift a team around them.
I've just scanned the paper / summary and 2/ is definitely in there. 1/ is, as far as I can see by 2 measures - member of FIFA before 1924; and secondly by seeding which is in itself a measure of past performance which is somewhat a measure of ingrained 'footballness'
TLDR - C-O's right, but there's more to it than JUST GDP and Pop.
Uruguay and Croatia export a disproportionate number of talented footballers - both are seemingly genetically gifted.
Given yesterdays results, is anyone going to stick their neck out and predict any scores today. I'm giving up betting, thats for sure, after yesterday 🙂
Surely you've learnt by now just to let Mrs binners bet for you? 😉