Germany vs Italy, semi-final, build up and match thread

[Leff]

First topic message reminder :

Past records for these two teams:
All encounters - Italy 14 wins, Germany 7 wins, Drawn 9; Goals - Italy 45, Germany 34.
Competitive encounters (WCs and Euros) - Germany drew 4, lost 3 including that heartbreaking one in Dortmund I watched from the stands.

Turn the pages...

We have a new-look German team full of confidence and versatile players. Forget that experiment in the last match. Gomez, Podolski and Mueller are expected to start. Schweinsteiger is said to be fit (did nothing notable vs Greece).

Pirlo is unlikely to find as much space as he did against England to run his midfield drama. Ozil can run his own fast-paced show.

BBC pundits are all predicting 2-0 win for Germany, disregarding past history.

We have seen back-to-back matches decided by penalty kicks. Let's see some goals here.

I am going with the pundits - Germany 2-0.

Your thoughts and predictions?

[Crimey]

I thought Germany had an off-day.

This.

[LivinginItaly]

Well played Italy. Should be an interesting final, think spain will win it but Italy have shown that they can never be discounted.

[lorus59]

I expected more from the Germans in that second half but Italy were in control at all times. The Germans huffed and puffed but Italy disrupted their rhythm and stopped them building pressure. They couldn't impose themselves on the Italians

So, well played Italy. If Italy win the competition without penalties, England will be able to say they were the only team Italy didn't beat in the tournament.

Scant consolation, but it's something.

.

Italy didn't beat Spain. It was 1-1.

[Thomond]

I've said all along Germany are overrated and there's the evidence. Well done Italy, think they'll beat Spain on Sunday. Just something else to think about:

Italy drew with England after 120 minutes
Italy beat Germany after 90 minutes

So England are better than Germany.

That logic doesn't work at all. Are Spain as good as Costa Rica as they drew with them a few months back? Of course we know England are better than Spain as they beat them too.

[John Cregan]

I expected more from the Germans in that second half but Italy were in control at all times. The Germans huffed and puffed but Italy disrupted their rhythm and stopped them building pressure. They couldn't impose themselves on the Italians

So, well played Italy. If Italy win the competition without penalties, England will be able to say they were the only team Italy didn't beat in the tournament.

Scant consolation, but it's something.

.

Italy didn't beat Spain. It was 1-1.

Italy didn't beat Croatia either. It was 1-1............

[mystiroakey]

how often to we here that type of talk by thomond.

England played a certain way- which gives the opposition possesion and they limit the opposition to long range attempts. Not the way i want England to play at all. But that was the objective and it almost paid off.. Germany obviously has alot of quality and approached the game very differently, so fair play to them, but there were outplayed on the day.

by the way thomond that was a reply to your other post on the other thread that italy broke england down etc

[Thomond]

If Ballotelli was one notch better Italy would have one at a canter. England were nowhere near Italy in that match! Italy had quite a few close range opportunites, they didn't take them. They did last night.

[mystiroakey]

Thomond you do understand that italy had way more clear cut chances last night dont you. but that isnt a discredit to germany- this is about the cons and pluses of playing football and limiting real chances.(personally i would have rather england had a go at italy and lost in full time- i hate this 'maintain shape' and give the oppnents possesion approach- but that is another matter)

England had a chance of getting past italy- they did enough for a draw, germany didnt- dont worry i am not for one minute saying england are better than germany, or for one minute saying that germany had a worse tourny than england. But the fact is englands approcah almost paid off- germans didnt- italy controlled the game last night.

[Thomond]

They had more chances last night as Germany had to go for broke from about 65 minutes on. England's approach shouldn't have paid off, Italy's finishng was poor.


If Italy controlled last night's game what did they do for 100 minutes against England?

[John Cregan]

Last nights game was very even...........Germany had more of the play, more corners, more shots. Italy had the better attacking play though and probably the better chances...........

Italy England was (apart from the opening 15 mins) very one-sided.

I don't believe England approached the game that way, they were forced to due to the Italians better quality................

[mystiroakey]

John offcourse germany would have more possesion and more efforts at goal- they had to push on after conceading early on. People really need to look at games in the correct way.


Thomand its very simple that italy didnt control the game v england- because they wernt ahead at any point. Controlling the game is only about controlling the result - that is normally controlling a win, or in some situations a draw is good enough(only need to a draw to qualiy from a group or a 2 legged affair)

[mystiroakey]

Dont confuse controlling a game with ball control pal

[Thomond]

You're not being serious are you? So Italy weren't dominant and controlling against England? I think the fact that Italy were dominant in possesion were comfortably situated in the England half for most of the game, had more clear cut chances would suggest England were not in control of that game.

[mystiroakey]

"I don't believe England approached the game that way"

well they 100% did.

you only have to look at the game but understand how players react to situations.

England defend deep- when they lose the ball they run back to there positions. Spain on the other hand use a 10 sec rule- win the ball back straight away in any position. England give the opposition possesion.(many other teams defend from all areas as well)

Now I am not arguing that England can do what spain do at all or if it would ive us a better result. Just that we have been playing this way under hodgson..

[J.Benson II]

Last nights game was very even...........Germany had more of the play, more corners, more shots. Italy had the better attacking play though and probably the better chances...........

Italy England was (apart from the opening 15 mins) very one-sided.

I don't believe England approached the game that way, they were forced to due to the Italians better quality................

Thats true. England might have held Italy for 120 minutes but its only because they defended for their lives for the majority of it.
They were dominated in midfield and lacked the ability to mount any kind of offensive threat so ended up spending most of the time parked in their own half.
Despite the end results, the stats give you an indication of how one-sided Italy's game against England was compared to the German one.

[John Cregan]

Dont confuse controlling a game with ball control pal

I consider "controlling a game" as having more posession, using that posession to create good chances while limiting the opossition less posession and to a lot less good chances..............

"Controlling a game" IMO has NOTHING to do with the score of the game.

You could be 1-0 behind and still "controlling the game"..............Barca did it for 180 mins against Chelsea

[mystiroakey]

You're not being serious are you? So Italy weren't dominant and controlling against England? I think the fact that Italy were dominant in possesion were comfortably situated in the England half for most of the game, had more clear cut chances would suggest England were not in control of that game.

you miss the point completly- i am being 100% serious. You have to be ahead to control a games outcome

[Thomond]

John has hit the nail on the head, you can control the game without winning it. Barca did it agaisnt Chelsea, Ireland did it against NZ in the rugby (2nd test). How can you control a game if one, you don't have the ball and two you give up a shedload of chances?

[mystiroakey]

Dont confuse controlling a game with ball control pal

I consider "controlling a game" as having more posession, using that posession to create good chances while limiting the opossition less posession and to a lot less good chances..............

"Controlling a game" IMO has NOTHING to do with the score of the game.

You could be 1-0 behind and still "controlling the game"..............Barca did it for 180 mins against Chelsea

]


the fact that you used IMO is the point there. Its your opinion and its wrong IMO. Germany had to go forward after being behind as england would have if they had gone behind- therefore stats are from different games and we cant compare england v germany on those stats.

Chelsea were controlling the game - because there were ahead from the first game- they played a system that worked second leg- they only needed a 2-1 loss to move forward

[mystiroakey]

John has hit the nail on the head, you can control the game without winning it. Barca did it agaisnt Chelsea, Ireland did it against NZ in the rugby (2nd test). How can you control a game if one, you don't have the ball and two you give up a shedload of chances?

you couldnt be more wrong- and my above examples should get you back on track- its all about the outcome. Italy were in control of german tie by going ahead early on. Then they played deeper to counter germanys threat- They also had about 5 clear cut chances second half on the counter- If italy wernt ahead the game would have been very different in styles

[GSC]

At least we weren't out of the game at halftime like world beaters Germany. We faced an Italy not 4 days removed from 120 minutes play

[Thomond]

I can't agree with that at all. I just think that viewpoint is a bit skewed. I also don't see how you can dismiss someone elses opinion yet somehow yours is gospel?

[mystiroakey]

GSC we wenrt out of the game after 120 mins. thats the truth of it. It was up to the gods in the end. Italy had zero control of that outcome, even though they had the possesion. Having the ball and not scoring is not being controll of the game. You could argue they had control of the build up play - but thats it. And offcourse that is immaterial to football, which is only about results.

Not saying we did well or played better than germany - not in the slightest, but at least our style allowed us a sniff at the game- germans didnt. People that spout stats (german had more shots etc is pointless) because they had to attack , whereas Italy only needed to defend(the whole point of controlling a game is about being able to play to the current situation)

England allow the opposition to have more possesion- so even in that respect they are controlling the play when level or ahead(that wouldnt be controlling it from behind though- but as you may have witnessed v sweden when england were behind we attacked), There run back deep rather than defending high which gives the opponents more possesion.. Obviously they need to make that count by scoring on the counter. Which they couldnt do.

Look at last tournies england v germany

england had more posseion and more shots on goal and more shots on target- does that mean they controlled the game or that the game was even- offcourse not- there were behind so they had to push on! just like germany did yesterday.

[J.Benson II]

Dont confuse controlling a game with ball control pal

I consider "controlling a game" as having more posession, using that posession to create good chances while limiting the opossition less posession and to a lot less good chances..............

"Controlling a game" IMO has NOTHING to do with the score of the game.

You could be 1-0 behind and still "controlling the game"..............Barca did it for 180 mins against Chelsea

]


Germany had to go forward after being behind as england would have if they had gone behind- therefore stats are from different games and we cant compare england v germany on those stats.

Thats a good point. However, England were not beating Italy either. Therefore, the idea that England would only attack if they were losing simply highlights England's negative approach.
Even if Germany and Italy were 0-0 at half time, does anyone believe that Germany would have just parked in their own half for the rest of the game and just played for penalties?

[mystiroakey]

It is the only point J benson. I wish england had gone nehind early on- because they would have attacked beter.. We allways play deep after being ahead or v italy after 20 mins without being ahead.

I do agree with you though- i wish we had attacked them anyway, but we didnt and in a way at least it gave us a sniff

[Thomond]

I respect your opinion Oakey you usually correct on a lot of things, I can't agree with you on this one. I would say being dominant or controlling is a about a few things, possession, chances and territory. Italy had more possesion, created far more goal scoring chances (I'm taking from 20 yards in) and tha'ts why I say they were dominant. They controlled the game everywhere but the scoresheet. I say we leave it at that as we're not going ot agree and will just end up fighting

[J.Benson II]

It is the only point J benson. I wish england had gone nehind early on- because they would have attacked beter.. We allways play deep after being ahead or v italy after 20 mins without being ahead.

I do agree with you though- i wish we had attacked them anyway, but we didnt and in a way at least it gave us a sniff

I agree. Going behind always seems to bring the best out of England. Sweden being a case in point.
England actually tend to struggle when their winning as they tend to sit back on the lead.
In 96, 98, 00, 02 and 04 tournaments (5 in a row), England were knocked out in games in which they were winning at some point.

[mystiroakey]

Thomond

italy are just simply better. There is no argument there

[Sponsored content]