Euro 2012: Day 4 Thread

[Duty281]

First topic message reminder :

France v England (17:00 ITV 1)
Ukraine v Sweden (19:45 BBC 1)

The 4th and final group commences tomorrow and it starts with a mouthwatering game between England and France. France are favourites for the game and some people's pick to win the whole thing, but never say never for England. The day is rounded off by co-hosts Ukraine playing the unfancied Swedes.

Come on England!

[Crimey]

I imagine Sweden are favourites for this, but Ukraine have home advantage.

Balance out to a draw? Perfect.

[sportform]

Spain won Euro 2008 and the last World Cup. Germany were runners up four years ago and were 3rd in South Africa. Spain are ranked 1st in the world rankings, Germany are 3rd. A draw against those teams would have been ok.

France finished bottom of their groups in Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup without a win and are 14th in the world rankings.

England got to the 2nd round in South Africa and are 6th in the world. So why do England play negative? Why are England, the media, pundits and fans so happy with a draw against a poorer team?

France were there to beat yet we seemed to play for a draw. England the players, managers, media, fans don't seem to have a winning mentality. We fantasize too much about foreign football. and how great it all is.

I am very disappointed tonight. England should have done much, much better. The French defence was not good aerially and that shown in set pieces so why not go with Andy Carroll an put them under pressure.

England always worry too much about the opposition and never seem to play to their own strengths. Some of you have said Sweden and Ukraine are nothing to worry about but watching the France vs England game they maybe thinking the same about us.

This was the same old England tonight. Nothing has changed. Had this been a knock out game we'd be, no doubt, out on penalties by now.

[Crimey]

France have clearly improved since 2010 though, the team is very different.

They were the hardest team in our group and we got a draw, scored a goal and gave away very few good chances, they were forced into long shots. That isn't bad.

[sportform]

France have clearly improved since 2010 though, the team is very different.

Not from what I saw tonight. They offered a threat but I don't see France being a major force in this tournament.

They won their qualifying group by only one point from Bosnia-Herzegovina including a loss at home to Belarus not to mention that group was weaker than ours.

France may turn out to be the strongest opponents in the group, I just felt England gave them too much respect and didn't ask enough questions of them.

I think is comes down to mentality. Germany, Italy etc going into these tournaments believing they are going to win it. Even when England are playing well we enter tournaments in hope rather than expectation.

[JamesLincs]

sportsville... shut up. no one has to give you an answer to your post because its nonsense. i stopped reading after the first paragraph of absolute rubbish

[Crimey]

France have clearly improved since 2010 though, the team is very different.

Not from what I saw tonight. They offered a threat but I don't see France being a major force in this tournament.

They've had a very good record recently to be fair.

[JamesLincs]

22 unbeaten? yeah we should of won.....

[Duty281]

France third favourites for the tournament, 21 games unbeaten going into the game and France heavy favourites against England. We got a draw, fantastic. France didn't seem much of a threat as England kept them quiet for the most part.

[sportform]

22 unbeaten? yeah we should of won.....

Ireland were 14 games unbeaten going into the tournament. That means nothing.

[MtotheC's Wrasslin Biatch]

I agree with sportsville. Dress anything you want up with stats. They mean nothing.

That said, I think this was a good result and a positive performance from England. C'mon the rest of the tourney now

[Crimey]

22 unbeaten? yeah we should of won.....

Ireland were 14 games unbeaten going into the tournament. That means nothing.

They also beat England within the past two years. So it's an improvement.

[Duty281]

Ibrahimovic looking threatening every time he gets the ball and that's about it so far for Sweden. Hope Roy's taking notes!

[sportform]

22 unbeaten? yeah we should of won.....

Ireland were 14 games unbeaten going into the tournament. That means nothing.

They also beat England within the past two years. So it's an improvement.

England have beat Spain in that time too.

[Duty281]

Why do some people love to be negative? This is our best start to a European Championship since '96 (results wise), we've drawn against a team that was tipped to beat and outplay us and some people still like to have a moan.

[Geordie]

I didnt know blades of grasss were as dirty as they seem to be tripping people over left right and centre.......i mean every game has been ruined with constant diving...play acting etc..its painful to watch....bring back the days of Norman Hunter and Jackie Charlton!

Ribery trying to claim he had been elbowed ....come on man...your a grown man for gods sake!!!!

[Crimey]

Ibrahimovic is the big threat.

Andriy Voronin has been capped 72 times while scoring 8 goals, how do you still getting picked with a record that poor? He's their Emile Heskey.

[Crimey]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/euro2012/article-2157155/Euro-2012-Ukraine-boss-Oleg-Blokhin-says-defenders-tackle-strikers-score.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Mad for Chelsea]

awful miss by Ibrahimovic there. Sweden look very very vulnerable at the back to me, way too narrow. We MUST pick Walcott in the next game to take advantage of this...

[GG]

Sportsville

[Liam]

Ibra should have put Sweden 1-0 up. Pretty even stevens with Sweden very well set up. Ukraine keeper looks a bit dodgy so maybe there's hope for Sweden of scoring at least one.

[Geordie]

awful miss by Ibrahimovic there. Sweden look very very vulnerable at the back to me, way too narrow. We MUST pick Walcott in the next game to take advantage of this...

Why? Apart from being quick the guy is an average club player...who wouldnt be looked at if he played for another mid table club....

[Duty281]

awful miss by Ibrahimovic there. Sweden look very very vulnerable at the back to me, way too narrow. We MUST pick Walcott in the next game to take advantage of this...

I think he will be, Hodgson only picked Milner for France cause he's good at tracking back, we won't need such protection against the Swedes.

[Liam]

Walcott will be on the right up against Olssen, who has shown tonight he is very quick. However, he likes to get forward so there may be space in behind. I still don't rate Walcott enough for him to warrant a start. He's not good enough. The only way I would use him as I have said before is in the last 15-20 mins when the defenders are tiring and his speed will cause mayhem.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Sheva rolling back the years

but what on earth was the near post defender doing there? dreadful to let the ball slip between him and the post!

[sportform]

Walcott will be on the right up against Olssen, who has shown tonight he is very quick. However, he likes to get forward so there may be space in behind. I still don't rate Walcott enough for him to warrant a start. He's not good enough. The only way I would use him as I have said before is in the last 15-20 mins when the defenders are tiring and his speed will cause mayhem.

Walcott had more assists in the Premier League last season than any other English player and only Ashley Young has had more for an English player since the last World Cup.

The trouble with Walcott is he is a striker playing wide and his game is more about movement than dribbling and crossing. When he plays for Arsenal he plays in a front three close to Van Persie and get the ball more in the final third. Too often when he plays for England he plays wide of a four or five and gets the ball in his own half. People then expect him to run the ball 70-80 yards (not many do that unless their Messi or Maradona) and that is not his game.

[Duty281]

Right Swden are going to have to have a go at us on Friday which suits our counter-attacking we've-got-more-pace-than-you game down to the ground.

[Mad for Chelsea]

I'm a bit bemused by the BBC pundits all heaping praise on Wellbeck after today's game

[Duty281]

Yes I'm a bit befuddled as well after reading this.

Lee Dixon: Danny Welbeck and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain were excellent.

Alan Shearer: Danny Welbeck who was giving the back four all sorts of problems. I would say Welbeck was our man of the match.

Fair enough, he was decent for the opening 25 minutes but pretty anonymous after that.

[sportform]

I can remember the Milner chance and Lescott's goal but don't really remember the French keeper having that much more to deal with.

[mystiroakey]

This group is going to the final game whatever happens now..

[GSC]

Decent performance, improved from the 2 warm up matches offensively.

Still work to do though, our attacking players were left isolated for long periods and a bit too happy to stand off and not let opponents in behind. We'll get punished again if we dont press on the edge of the box.

[GSC]

I'd definately drop Milner for Walcott vs Sweden. Ibrahimovic aside, they looked very poor against Ukraine.

[Guest]

Let's face it England were very limited up front and really offered nothing in the second half. We simply don't have the technical ability to hold onto the ball and we will be found out later in the tournament. Luckily Sweden were appaling and have no real threats other than Zlatan. I would play Walcott because their defence is woefully slow and if Welbeck can't bang a couple against Mellberg & Granqvist then we simply don't deserve to qualify.

How Welbeck got MOM from Shearer is astonishing, he played relatively okay. The thing that p**sed me off was when we took the 1-0 lead, Roy races out from the dugout and basically orders a full defensive tactic to be employed like he would order in the Europa League and see the game out. That tactic is shocking at International level because your playing against the best players like Nasri that can unlock you at any minute. It's so painful to watch this defensive England and it won't flourish for much futher than the QF.

[Guest]

Quite perplexed by the negativity around Welbeck here.

He isn't a Rooney, so we can distinguish that he isn't going to hit thunderbolts.

Also once Young came inside, Welbeck got into the game. England drowned him out in the second half with long balls!!!

The running he did off the ball was brilliant. He chased the defenders down and pressured them galore.

In general I don't think people actually understand his strengths and that England didn't play to them for long periods in the game.

[mystiroakey]

i thought wellbeck was brilliant. one of a few out there and very deserved MOTM. England got nervous and didnt press after the goa(30 mins)l. which didnt give him enough of the ball. we need to keep intensity up and our wellbecks,walcotts, youngs etc will get play

[Mad for Chelsea]

I'm with John and Duty on this one. I genuinely didn't see what Welbeck did that was all that great. I'm not saying he had a poor game, but for me he was invisible in the second half, and his first touch is too heavy. He had a good first 30 minutes, but little thereafter.

I may be wrong. Quite possibly I am given the general reaction (though that could be man u biased media given he's their only representative in the team at present). But I genuinely don't see how he can be MOTM (as quite a few seem to be making him): for me Johnson, Terry, and Cole were England's best players.

[GSC]

In fairness to Welbeck, the service was poor after the first 30 minutes or so. A striker can only do so much without good service. Problem is neither Gerrard nor Parker have the legs anymore to get up and support, so we have a big gap between the midfield and attack.

[Guest]

I'm with John and Duty on this one. I genuinely didn't see what Welbeck did that was all that great. I'm not saying he had a poor game, but for me he was invisible in the second half, and his first touch is too heavy. He had a good first 30 minutes, but little thereafter.

I may be wrong. Quite possibly I am given the general reaction (though that could be man u biased media given he's their only representative in the team at present). But I genuinely don't see how he can be MOTM (as quite a few seem to be making him): for me Johnson, Terry, and Cole were England's best players.

Johnson was dreadful MFC. Most of France's attacks were down our left side.

Terry, given the slip by Benzema far too much for my liking. Average at best. Hoof hoof and hoof.

Cole had a solid performance. The best in our back 4.

For me Welbeck, Parker and Chamberlain put in decent shifts.

Not sure as I said before what people expect. England hoofing the ball was never going to play into our strengths. Once Young drifted inside, Chamberlain and Welbeck came to life. Welbeck done brilliantly given the crap service he got.

I thought Roy got the balance spot on.

[mystiroakey]

The first 30 mins welbeck was the main man. the rest of the game was average(or slightly better) from england but it was just standard really.

do you give motm to kp in a cricket match for making a good 100 whislt he had the chance- or do you give it to someone that plays average throughout the whole match?

[Guest]

In fairness to Welbeck, the service was poor after the first 30 minutes or so. A striker can only do so much without good service. Problem is neither Gerrard nor Parker have the legs anymore to get up and support, so we have a big gap between the midfield and attack.

That's my problem and issue with Hodgson. As soon as we scored the camera panned round to Hodgson and he was immediately pointing and altering the tactics to just sit and make sure we didn't concede like he did at Fulham in scraping through the Europa League with 1-0 away wins. The first 30 mins were fantastic, I thought we were clearly the better team and offensively we were getting at France and Mexes & Rami were all over the shop. It's exactly what Italy did to Spain in the second half, they attacked and put pressure on weak defenders likes Arbeloa & Ramos and they scored.

In my opinion you've got to attack these teams (not ultra-attacking) but you get my point. Holland, Spain, France all have the same thing in common....woeful defences, so we need to exploit it. If you sit back your just allowing their strengths to dominate the game and they end up winning. If you disagree with that then there's no hope.

I do agree Gerrards legs have gone and that is a problem in terms of going from defending to springing counter attacks

[mystiroakey]

your correct john. we need to keep the intensity levels up. i like quick build up from england - but we need to keepo doing it- but remember that we shouldnt commit to many playters as we need to keep organised at the back

[Mad for Chelsea]

I'm with John and Duty on this one. I genuinely didn't see what Welbeck did that was all that great. I'm not saying he had a poor game, but for me he was invisible in the second half, and his first touch is too heavy. He had a good first 30 minutes, but little thereafter.

I may be wrong. Quite possibly I am given the general reaction (though that could be man u biased media given he's their only representative in the team at present). But I genuinely don't see how he can be MOTM (as quite a few seem to be making him): for me Johnson, Terry, and Cole were England's best players.

Johnson was dreadful MFC. Most of France's attacks were down our left side.

Terry, given the slip by Benzema far too much for my liking. Average at best. Hoof hoof and hoof.

Cole had a solid performance. The best in our back 4.

For me Welbeck, Parker and Chamberlain put in decent shifts.

Not sure as I said before what people expect. England hoofing the ball was never going to play into our strengths. Once Young drifted inside, Chamberlain and Welbeck came to life. Welbeck done brilliantly given the crap service he got.

I thought Roy got the balance spot on.

totally disagree on Terry. the only time Benzema managed anything threatening was when he came back into midfield looking for the ball. It's not Terry's job to go with him then, the central midfielders should have. Benzema didn't once get in behind the defence, and Terry made some great interventions.

At the same time you say "England hoofing the ball was never going to play to our strengths" and then "Roy got the balance spot on"

Also if England were going to hoof the ball, then surely Carroll would have been a better option thatn Welbeck? Just because we didn't play to his strengths doesn't mean he had a good game. He had a good 30 minutes (and even then at half-time I was saying "mixed bag").

[GSC]

Well, it almost worked, France never opened us up and were limited to long shots. We didn't press enough on the edge of the box though.

Benzema was awful.

[Mad for Chelsea]

Once more I agree with John, the French backline looked really vulnerable to me, but England didn't try to get at them nearly enough IMO. Sweden's defence looks even shakier to me, hence why I'd start Walcott (he may not be the ultimate answer, but he's more likely to worry them than Milner).

[Guest]

I'm with John and Duty on this one. I genuinely didn't see what Welbeck did that was all that great. I'm not saying he had a poor game, but for me he was invisible in the second half, and his first touch is too heavy. He had a good first 30 minutes, but little thereafter.

I may be wrong. Quite possibly I am given the general reaction (though that could be man u biased media given he's their only representative in the team at present). But I genuinely don't see how he can be MOTM (as quite a few seem to be making him): for me Johnson, Terry, and Cole were England's best players.

Johnson was dreadful MFC. Most of France's attacks were down our left side.

Terry, given the slip by Benzema far too much for my liking. Average at best. Hoof hoof and hoof.

Cole had a solid performance. The best in our back 4.

For me Welbeck, Parker and Chamberlain put in decent shifts.

Not sure as I said before what people expect. England hoofing the ball was never going to play into our strengths. Once Young drifted inside, Chamberlain and Welbeck came to life. Welbeck done brilliantly given the crap service he got.

I thought Roy got the balance spot on.

totally disagree on Terry. the only time Benzema managed anything threatening was when he came back into midfield looking for the ball. It's not Terry's job to go with him then, the central midfielders should have. Benzema didn't once get in behind the defence, and Terry made some great interventions.

At the same time you say "England hoofing the ball was never going to play to our strengths" and then "Roy got the balance spot on"

Also if England were going to hoof the ball, then surely Carroll would have been a better option thatn Welbeck? Just because we didn't play to his strengths doesn't mean he had a good game. He had a good 30 minutes (and even then at half-time I was saying "mixed bag").

Disagree. Benzema gave him the slip in the first half and Terry fortunate not to concede a penalty for a high boot in the first half. Second half Benzema got more and more of the ball 20 yards out and had a few shots. Terry was marking thin air.

Balance of the team. Not tactics which are 2 different things.

I thought Roy might have brought Carroll on. I was surprised that Defoe came on. The players lokoed tired in the second half and I am not a fan of hoof to the big man, but our defence did not look comfortable with the ball at all. bypassed the midfield.

Welbeck also did more clearances from set plays than the entire back 4 all match!

[GSC]

In fairness to Roy, a midfield 2 of Wilshere and Rodwell would be more effective in regards to supporting attacks.

[Guest]

But Roy had Young and Chamberlain who linked up well with Welbeck. Roy with the luxury of Parker being the anchor I thought would've given Gerrard more licence to push on. In the second half Gerrard just dropped deeper and deeper which was a shame to see him attempt more longer distance passing than the short balls he was playing into Young, Milner and Chamberlain in the first half.

It's not a defeat which is the main thing. England can improve.

[mystiroakey]

Paul Scholes left wing, how England will rue the day they ever did that. He is twice the player Lampard and Gerrard will ever be and they made the biggest c*ck up of all time. He was the key to them winning any major tournament and they misused him and you couldn't blame him for retiring.

sorry england dont need to rue anything- scholes is a spoilt brat end of story. he has also done a tevez at united and refused to play. you play the position you are told and that is that.. scholes is the one that rues it all. he has openly admitted how he feels in regards to england and that he should never have quit..

[GSC]

We'll see him push on more vs Sweden and Ukraine I suspect. When we come up against sides like France, Spain et al, we'll need to be more compact.

[Crimey]

I can't believe the amount of people praising Welbeck and criticising Johnson. I can't remember Ribery ever getting past Johnson on the left side, but I can remember Debuchy getting past Cole a few times...not that I think Cole played badly.

Welbeck tried, but I don't think he pressed the defence enough, which is supposedly his strength, he let France start attacks from deep rather than pressing on the defenders which Young and Chamberlain did really well. He also spoiled attacks by giving the ball away with his first touch.

[Sponsored content]