EURO 2012

Who was it? I like Linkin, and I liked that.

eh going out on penos to italy, i dunno what england coach since robson or maybe venables fucks up any less in the knockout stages of a tournament

Charlie Adam ‏@Charlie26Adam
Get it in the mixer for the big man game over

is there a gif yet of Mario getting wanked off by two guys before extra time yet?

Happy for Pirlo.

Why oh why has the brave new world of being so shit and losing in 90 mins not materialised? Why wasting everyone's time with spirit and er, spirit to lose on pens?! ffs!

Hierarchy of England exits, modern era:

• Italia 90
• Euro 96
• France 98
• Portugal 04
• Germany 06
• this
• Euro 2000
• South Africa 2010
• were England even at Euro 92?

why did pirlo have so much space? why were england so deep? why didn't hodgey change it? inflexible, arrogant, clueless. he knows one way and one way only. no way are these players as technically poor as those 4 matches suggest.

i'm not sure what pirlo did all match that was so damaging tbph, i musta missed a few things. italy had attacking momentum but only really damaged england when terry fucked the offside trap for balotelli a few times in the first half.

inflexible, arrogant, clueless. he knows one way and one way only. no way are these players as technically poor as those 4 matches suggest.

join the queue of last several lfc managers so tbf. if we're just grinding axes here, like.

england did not qualify for 92

WHAT?

Euro 92 = Turnipgate

i mean, chris, england's players have always looked technically incompetent, we have actual threads about this. english players are technically incompetent, as a unit wrt passing, touch, movement and decisions.

Rooting for the underdogs Ita and Por. Don't think the Italians have that much class at the back unfortunately and Portugal are Portugal - although they've been the best I've seen at a major tournament.

xxp = lol wtf they couldn't string five passes together toward the end of that - not Hodgson's fault.

Pirlo would have made space but yeah not as damaging as the narrative will suggest.

nothing to do with liverpool. why when rooney broke was the rest of the team in their own half sticking to that precious shape?

haha sorry i misremember the followon failure to qualify for usa 94 obv

92 was brolin wasn't it? xposts oops

rooney broken through now?

so why is there this narrative about england having done well in this comp? they played terribly for the most part. is it just cos they played shit with an english coach that nobody hates, so the fans got behind the team more? that seems to be it as far as i can see.

Oxlade-Chamberlain for England manager 2013

young's and wellbeck's movement was terrible on the break, but the system tonight wasn't so much the problem as the indifferent attacking performance/nerves of young, rooney- hodgson ought to have hauled both off tbf, i'll grant you that

Portugal 04 > France 98

In Portugal England actually looked good for about two and a half matches. In France they scraped out of a shit group, then lost to a team who lost to a team who lost to a team who lost the final.

There was no one on the bench who would've done better than Rooney or Welbeck. Carroll wasn't any good.

why is there this narrative about england having done well in this comp?

Relatively speaking, they have done. I much prefered watching the group games this time around to the utterly tedious shit that England served up in South Africa (or the largely insipid displays in Germany, for that matter).

england's players have always looked technically incompetent, we have actual threads

Certainly the impression I've received throughout my entire football hating and approx one England match a year watching life. Other teams: possession, passing. England: long balls, passes to nowhere.

xp

NBS otm why is there a narrative that rates all England performances the same instead of comparing their achievements across tournaments?

yes england have always looked technically inferior, but hodgson doesn't even set teams up to pass, to control, to dominate. england have been outplayed in almost all of hodgson's games. coincidence? and we want this guy to lead the st george's park revolution?

Eng have done really well, but only if you compare to past perfs at the Euros that are set away from home. To top the group with a manager that has just taken over w/several injuries (Wilshere, Lampard) does = well.

What isn't ever faced (as per the beeb) is that we are as bad as Greece (say), whom the media here have no right to criticise. multiple xps

Relatively speaking, they have done. I much prefered watching the group games this time around to the utterly tedious shit that England served up in South Africa (or the largely insipid displays in Germany, for that matter).

true, but that's relative to an absolute low. i guess the swedish game was exciting enough that it got people behind the team. england weren't great that night either though.

scott parker btw, knew he'd be found out at this level, he's just not international class.

xpost they haven't played well though, and they only topped the group due to the incompetence of others and a massive refereeing error. don't delude yourselves.

wasn't England just in an easy group this time?

England in a relatively easy group, short of players with technical ability, leaden and inflexible tactically. Still their best tournament performances since 2004 probably.

and 2004 not a question of being a better side, just a younger, bolder Rooney

Fair enough, but most people thought (for once) that Eng were not going to get out of that group and Eng did show something to come back against Sweden.

the only thing that England were brilliant at was getting their body in front of someone shooting. the whole team should have been dropped for footballing reasons

but that's relative to an absolute low

Not really. In the time I've been watching they failed to qualify in 84, lost every game in 88, were humiliated in 92, were dreadful in 00, and failed to qualify in 08. The relatively good times of 96 and 04 were the exception, rather than the norm.

(xp to Ken) England were in an easy group in South Africa as well, yet made a much worse job of getting out of it.

enough about england. lawrenson's had some stinkers, but that must've been the absolute worst.

I haven't heard much of a narrative about England being great. The TV panels have called them poor in possession, flaky at the back and uninspired going forward throughout. Nobody was calling them good when they drew with France in the tournament's most inept game, or when they conceded two daft goals against Sweden or when they scraped past Ukraine with the help of a myopic linesman. The only thing i've seen much of has been "perhaps when you're playing this badly and progressing it could be your year".

one of the best things about watching in the pub is the inaudible commentary

you can turn the commentary off on the red button but i don't think the sound quality is as good. and i like to be able to hear the england band, obv.

Not really. In the time I've been watching they failed to qualify in 84, lost every game in 88, were humiliated in 92, were dreadful in 00, and failed to qualify in 08. The relatively good times of 96 and 04 were the exception, rather than the norm.

i've seen every major tournament since 1990 and i'd say 2010 was about the worst they've played and the most humiliating exit. not qualifying is obv worse but if we're talking performances after they get to a tournament.

I forgot Japan 02, this was better than that

I was just comparing exits btw - 2004 was probably the best overall performance, and you can make a good case for that being the one England should've won (and spared us Greece to boot)

darragh, i do see the sense in him setting the team up this way for this tournament, and i do appreciate that coming into the job so late wasn't ideal. my concern is what happens going forward. which tbf isn't just down to hodgson but the fa as well, but still.

Really hoping for a couple of belters now in the SFs. QFs were so one-sided.

Eng comedy spirit made this the best game - not saying much.

what will happen going forward will have as much to do with the standard of available players as it does with Woy i think, he had a pretty weak deck to play with this go round

Really wished Ita won after 90 mins and destroyed Eng -- these wishy-washy heroics till pens really stop people from comfronting the v poor quality of what is produced. But yeah yeah we've had this one time and again on ILX.

Rooney clearly unfit. It was a waste of time taking him.

― Ismael Klata, Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:30 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'd replace 'unfit' with 'shit' tbh. what has he got to be unfit about? he didn't look like he cared that he looked like a travesty of his 'reputation' tonight.

it's not roy or his system, it's that our players clearly can't play beyond the domestic season with anything like the effort they put in from august to may (with no mid-season break, 2 domestic cup comps, europe etc, and the insistence it seems of only picking players from the top 6 (or so, liverpool being the exception)).

we're shit and we know we are.

There was no one on the bench who would've done better than Rooney or Welbeck. Carroll wasn't any good.

they'd have done better to start with carroll and welbeck and pretend that rooney was injured. the seemingly enforced post-suspension inclusion of rooney was the downfall of this campaign.

having said that i'm more than happy not to get tonked by the germans.

He wasn't match-sharp in either game, and couldn't run after the hour mark in this one. You know why he was left on, but again that's the other major weakness of hoping something'll turn up.

thought taking off milner was odd, i felt he played very well.

Milner was wide open on the right about 500 times.

Ox for Young wd perhaps have been better than Walcott for Milner but i wdn't go as far as saying Milner played very well and the system obviously stopped at the halfway line anyway