Tunisia v England

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Cerberus said:

So far the Africa teams have been the worse by some distance.

Utter shite. Cut their allocation.

In fairness, three of them only lost to last minute goals, and two of those were against very good teams. The only one that's been poor so far is Nigeria, and I wouldn't judge on one performance.

Let's be honest, anyone watching Scotland's efforts at World Cups would have been calling to cut UEFA's allocation too. 

[Scary Bear]

I just realised that Tunisia didn't pick up a single booking. Incredible.

Colombian Ref. 7th best referee in the world in 2015 according to his Wiki Page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmar_Roldán

Someone should really add an entry to note his love of wrestling.

[Scary Bear]

While I'm on it the absolute worst thing about these tournaments is the fucking England chatter during other games. I'm watching Germany play Mexico, I do not give a f**k about how Southgate's training camp has gone. You absolutely know that if Scotland were to ever get to a tournament we'd not be afforded that sort of coverage either.

 

From memory, and it’s 20+ years ago so I could be talking nonsense, we did get those sort of bulletins from the Scotland training camp.

[dirty dingus]

Ah well I had it for a 1-1 draw, cheers Harry yah p***k. England should have been out of sight but their finishing was woeful.  They should have had at least one penalty but also Tunisia got a poor call for the offside when Pickford came out for a flounce.  They should have enough to beat Panama then 0-0 shitfest against Belgium. Their team is not good enough to win it and the media are putting me in the ABE camp even though my pals up from London for the game on Sunday.

[Savage Henry]

 
From memory, and it’s 20+ years ago so I could be talking nonsense, we did get those sort of bulletins from the Scotland training camp.

Yeah. We did. There are times and places for them though, and the BBC has generally been better at it than ITV. Doesn’t really bother me at all, and if you were an England fan you’d probably want more of them.

[JamesM82]

Funny thing is, with Germany making an arse of it, England might be better off finishing second to Belgium.

The winner of the England / Belgium group, if they win the last 16 tie vs Senegal / Poland, etc, would play the winner of the Brazil group, if they beat the second place team (Germany?) in the last 16. So looking like a tough quarter-final almost irrespective.

Whereas the runner-up in the England / Belgium group would go into the other section and would be looking at Mexico / Switzerland / Serbia in the quarter-final. 

The odds calculators now have Belgium more likely than England to win the group, because they won by a bigger margin yesterday, but less likely to win the tournament because of this.

[TheScarf]

Give the South Americans the 5 automatic slots they deserve and make one of the African sides play-off against the Oceania qualifier.  Surely someone like New Zealand would put up more of a fight/at least try, than the likes of Tunisia and Nigeria?

[Herman Hessian]

9 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

England deserved to win,......There is a total lack of balance, don't think there is a single left footer in the team 

FTFY - (now) reported for sectarianism

[cyderspaceman]

7 hours ago, RedRob72 said:

England denied 2 clear penalties, but still did enough to win, hopefully a decent performance against Panama on Sunday will see them through to the knockout stages.

I hope not, but it will.

“Hope is a demon. It convinces you to believe in something better, persuades you the outcome will be favorable, and whispers eagerly in your ear that the miracle you so desperately need will happen. Then it crushes you. Hope only leaves you fallen and bleeding in its aftermath, nothing more than a pile of misery and desolation.”   Kreitzer.   

[DanMc99]

the sooner belgium beat them the better so i do not need to listen to their shite

[RedRob72]

I hope not, but it will.

“Hope is a demon. It convinces you to believe in something better, persuades you the outcome will be favorable, and whispers eagerly in your ear that the miracle you so desperately need will happen. Then it crushes you. Hope only leaves you fallen and bleeding in its aftermath, nothing more than a pile of misery and desolation.”   Kreitzer.   [emoji4]

Beautifully put, a quote that probably sums up every England supporter I know. Still, I wish them well.

[cyderspaceman]

11 hours ago, Rab B Nesbit said:

The state some folk, mainly SNP voters get in over England ... I’d go and cut the grass instead  

 

It's because the English ruling class (and about 50% of the lesser orders) have been, are and always will be, such absolute c u nts.  You are incapable of rational thought.   

 

Oh! You mean the football team?   Meh. No worries. Total dross.

[forameus]

They played very well in the opening period of the game, pretty much up until Tunisia got the penalty.  Playing very unlike a normal England tournament team.  But then the equaliser went in and hoooo boy, we saw the usual England come out.  Tunisia obviously aided by some very questionable refereeing, but had that ended a draw I'd say the terrible finishing and lackluster pace in the middle of the game were more to blame than refereeing decisions.

Imagine they'll beat Panama fairly comfortably, so less pressure on the Belgium game.  Knockout rounds at least, and then it's anyone's guess.

Tunisia were absolutely hopeless though.  Saying England played well is like saying Livingston played well when they beat Thistle.  They absolutely did, but there's a massive caveat of facing absolute shite.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Yeah. We did. There are times and places for them though, and the BBC has generally been better at it than ITV. Doesn’t really bother me at all, and if you were an England fan you’d probably want more of them.

 

They don't bother me either, especially on the BBC who don't have adverts so need to fill time with something.

What does annoy me is the blanket coverage across news and sport when England have played. This morning on BBC Breakfast, the lead story was England winning. They then spent about 15 minutes of each repeated half-hour going on about last night's game. My objection is nothing to do with them winning either. Had Kane not scored, they'd have devoted the same amount of coverage just with a different tone.  

It was an opening group game against Tunisia FFS, not a knockout tie against Germany or Brazil. 

And it wasn't just the reports, it was the whole "we" chat between the presenters as well. Yes they may be English, but they also need to remember what the first 'B' in BBC stands for.  If they want to do the whole "we" thing like other countries then hurry up and split the BBC into {S,E,W,NI}BC. 

 

[munro7]

That whole “Look out Ronaldo, there’s a Harry Kane coming” is the single most cringeworthy piece of commentary that I’ve ever heard.
Not least because although Kane did well in terms of positioning to get 2 tap-ins you wouldn’t have known he was playing for the rest of the game. Ronaldo, in contrast, was involved in literally anything of note Portugal came up with.

[marty_j]

Funny thing is, with Germany making an arse of it, England might be better off finishing second to Belgium.
The winner of the England / Belgium group, if they win the last 16 tie vs Senegal / Poland, etc, would play the winner of the Brazil group, if they beat the second place team (Germany?) in the last 16. So looking like a tough quarter-final almost irrespective.
Whereas the runner-up in the England / Belgium group would go into the other section and would be looking at Mexico / Switzerland / Serbia in the quarter-final. 
The odds calculators now have Belgium more likely than England to win the group, because they won by a bigger margin yesterday, but less likely to win the tournament because of this.

I noticed this too. Might make Belgium v England game interesting if results go as expected. To me / to you

[forameus]

I usually find the seethe that pundits/commentary around England generates just a little bit cringe, but they were particularly "on it" last night.  The chat early on seemed to be that England had played some of the best football so far at the tournament in the early stages of the game.  Much better than their usual fare, but over-egging it a wee bit.  Usually find the pundits are a little above the positioning that the rest of the media does, and are usually just positive in the hope that they'll do well rather than to actively build them up to profit off the knocking back down, but I'm not so sure now.

[PauloPerth]

38 minutes ago, munro7 said:

That whole “Look out Ronaldo, there’s a Harry Kane coming” is the single most cringeworthy piece of commentary that I’ve ever heard.
Not least because although Kane did well in terms of positioning to get 2 tap-ins you wouldn’t have known he was playing for the rest of the game. Ronaldo, in contrast, was involved in literally anything of note Portugal came up with.

Isn't that all Kane does though?  A very average footballer, but an excellent goalscorer.

Agree thought England were decent up until the equaliser then fell away completely. Tunisia had some spells where they kept the ball quite well but as the second half wore on they were obviously so desperate for a point that they fell deeper and deeper. Probably the wrong tactic against an England team who's strengths are all in attack. You feel if you attack them a bit more, they're vulnerable.

I thought England's first half performance was far more entertaining than many of the games I've seen. They are not good enough to win it, they have no midfield whatsoever. Can you imagine them up against Spain for example. Last 16/ Quarter finals sounds about their level, which is about the norm.

 

[Paco]

Last 16/ Quarter finals sounds about their level, which is about the norm.
 

I think the point is though they could very conceivably at this stage reach the semi final without playing a ‘big’ team. Their last 16 and QF opponents - at this stage - look most likely likely to be out of Poland/Columbia and then Sweden/Switzerland/Serbia/Mexico in the QF. It could change and as noted earlier in the thread, winning the group could ultimately harm them.

Of course, as I recall at Euro 2016 a stoppage time goal from Iceland meant that they, and not Portugal, were England’s last 16 opponents and we all know how that ended. But unless Germany somehow win the group, Brazil surprisingly finish second or England themselves win their own group, they look in a good position to reach the semi final to me. And from then on? Nobody says the best team has to win the World Cup...

[Savage Henry]

50 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

Isn't that all Kane does though?  A very average footballer, but an excellent goalscorer.

Agree thought England were decent up until the equaliser then fell away completely. Tunisia had some spells where they kept the ball quite well but as the second half wore on they were obviously so desperate for a point that they fell deeper and deeper. Probably the wrong tactic against an England team who's strengths are all in attack. You feel if you attack them a bit more, they're vulnerable.

I thought England's first half performance was far more entertaining than many of the games I've seen. They are not good enough to win it, they have no midfield whatsoever. Can you imagine them up against Spain for example. Last 16/ Quarter finals sounds about their level, which is about the norm.

 

Yeah, this - although I think Kane's a better all round player than that.  Interesting to see how England use him compared with how Scotland refused to use Kris Boyd.

Tunisia were about Scotland's level, I'd suggest.  And England made pretty hard work of Scotland too, at least in the second game.  They utterly trounced us at Wembley, mind you. 

I've always thought it's a myth that Scotland plays better against stronger teams.  I'm not sure about England.  The Belgium game will be a really good gauge of where they are.  After that, depending on the draw, they might get to the quarter finals.  Which would be a success for them.  I really don't see them doing a Wales.

The over-reaction from Lineker was disappointing - he seems like a decent bloke, but they certainly weren't anything like as good as he seemed to think. and it's that kind of over-reaction that makes them so easy to dislike.  It's also completely counterproductive, and directly leads to the hideous personal attacks they were highlighting in the  build up to the game.