Humble Rex wrote:

What are you talking about? I said that sections of the crowd at Wembley booed the England team yesterday. Since there was a large majority of England fans there it is fair to assume England fans were not happy with the team. Are you saying I am wrong?

Yes. They weren't booing the England team.

Truthfully - it could have been Arsenal v Blackburn/Stoke. Not many people around here generally appreciate the kind of football those teams represent. Has nothing to do with "deserving" to win or "right" way of playing. Just boring as fuck IMO.

Right, well I'm sure they're not crying themselves to sleep that you're bored. It's a results business and fans are happy when results are good. Stoke fans don't give a fuck that their best chance of a goal is through a throw-in. England have no duty to entertain anyone. There's no reason England should be 'ashamed'. They played a much better team, and they played to give themselves the best possible chance of getting a result, and they got that result - all within the rules of the game.

Rex why are you so bothered by the performance anyway?
It was just a friendly, not hugely significant in the grand scheme of things.

A morale booster for England, a kick in the teeth for the Spanish.
No harm done.

Carl Jenkinson wrote:

Dodgy stream?

High def, and there were boos already in the first half when Torres was on the bench.

Rex you said teams set themselves up NOT to play against Spain.

That surely indicates that you believe there is a right way to play and a wrong way to play.

I say this because England played against Spain in a friendly this weekend which is a fact.

And Arsenal v Blackburn/Stoke produced a 4-3 loss to Blackburn for Arsenal and a 3-1 win to Arsenal this season.

Surely Spain could have achieved something like that at some point.

Humble Rex wrote:

The problem for Spain is that teams set up to NOT play against them. You can see exactly what this Spanish team is capable of when they are a goal up and the opposition is forced to at least TRY to go forward.

Why should they play the way Spain want?
Why should they "entertain" the neutrals like you?

The whole essence of tactics is each side trys to impose their style on the opposition/game, countering your opponents tactics is an important part of that.

And of course the whole point is to win the game not entertain neutrals.
There is no such thing as "anti-football" thats just some bollocks Wenger made up as an excuse for constantly having his game plan nullified.

What I mean by "teams set up to NOT play" in reference to Spain is that teams go into the game fully satisfied with a 0-0 draw, hoping to get a fluke goal or two. That is EXACTLY what England did.

It gets a bit strange when people say Spain play boring football without taking into account that more often than not it is because of how the opposition set themselves up and their mindset going into the game that dictates what the game will be like.

Spain of yesterday looked like Arsenal for soooo many games in the last couple of years. Possession football without either ambition or quality to also be penetrative can be boring as fuck. I´ll take that over what the Stokes/Blackburns/Englands of this world serve up any day though.

Personally, I strongly question going into a game with the mindset of being fully content with a scoreless draw and just defend for 90 minutes. I DO expect to be entertained by football, but what do I know? Maybe I´m just an old fool with a romantic view of what football should offer.

Well the thing is Rex, you were a neutral and just wanted to be entertained.
Many of us would have been happy with a 0-0 draw at Chelsea, offer us a 0-1 win scrambled in off Carl Jenkinsons left pin and we'd have your arm off.
Theres nothing wrong with playing for a 0-0 and hoping to pinch one, on the contrary it's the clever thing to do.
You force the opposition to alter the way they would like to play hoping that they might be uncomfortable and make a mistake, all the best tacticians do it

It is one thing getting a scoreless draw, and another thing completely to go into a game with the mindset of playing for a scoreless draw IMO. The latter view is something I have nothing but contempt for.

Biggus wrote:

Well the thing is Rex, you were a neutral and just wanted to be entertained.
Many of us would have been happy with a 0-0 draw at Chelsea, offer us a 0-1 win scrambled in off Carl Jenkinsons left pin and we'd have your arm off.
Theres nothing wrong with playing for a 0-0 and hoping to pinch one, on the contrary it's the clever thing to do.
You force the opposition to alter the way they would like to play hoping that they might be uncomfortable and make a mistake, all the best tacticians do it

Depends on the players you have, if you're Birmingham City or Stoke. Fair enough.

If you're Chelsea or Liverpool or Man City, it's a waste of talent and money.

Not having a go at England here. If anything, Spain and Holland have been the most cynical and result oriented units of the last WC.

Tim wrote:

Think we can finally bust the myth that Parker isn't a really good player.

Based on that performance? Er, no. Made two great sliding blocks/tackles, but was shocking on the ball, like nearly everyone in a white shirt. Running your socks off doesn't make you a good player.

Also shitty Spain not being able to beat shitty England cost me a £275 payout on my multiple. Cesc the main culprit!

Presuming his form over the last 2 seasons come into it as well, where he has been consistently excellent. He's a good player, does the dirty things in midfield very well. And tbf most teams passing turns to crap v Spain or Barca.

Captain wrote:

I'm 73mins into this england game and genuinely, how on earth was Scott Parker man of the match?

Thank you. Was in a pub getting told by three of the stupidest men I've ever met that Parker was basically a god.

In answer to your question; he made a sliding block towards the end and then held his hamstrings like he had heroically stretched himself beyond his limit for his team, nay, his country.

Edit - see you came to that conclusion yourself a few posts later!

Armor wrote:

Presuming his form over the last 2 seasons come into it as well, where he has been consistently excellent. He's a good player, does the dirty things in midfield very well. And tbf most teams passing turns to crap v Spain or Barca.

That performance didnt "bust any myths", in my opinion, and that was Tim's point. Parker looked the averagely talented, hard working player he always has looked.

Parker does exactly what he's put in the team for. You have to admire his efforts.

Rex, I'd love to have seen you in the trenches. You'd have thought "Jesus, stuff this" then gone charging across no mans land screaming with your arms flayling, firing random shots shouting "bring it ya nazi bastards!!"

Well if he's basing it solely on that performance then you're right.

Have to admit i like Parker though. Think our midfield could do with someone like him, at least for a couple of seasons until Frimpong and Coquelin are genuine alternatives to Song.

Carl Jenkinson wrote:

Parker does exactly what he's put in the team for. You have to admire his efforts.

Rex, I'd love to have seen you in the trenches. You'd have thought "Jesus, stuff this" then gone charging across no mans land screaming with your arms flayling, firing random shots shouting "bring it ya nazi bastards!!"

Based on what I have seen so far on your knowledge of history Dules, I am surprised you even know what trenches are.

Humble Rex wrote:

It is one thing getting a scoreless draw, and another thing completely to go into a game with the mindset of playing for a scoreless draw IMO. The latter view is something I have nothing but contempt for.

It's like any strategic goal in every walk of life, be it personal business military- You set out clear objectives and you can stop when you reach them as the mission is a success, to push on further you are gambling and throwing into question the whole enterprise.

General Mirth wrote:

Depends on the players you have, if you're Birmingham City or Stoke. Fair enough.

If you're Chelsea or Liverpool or Man City, it's a waste of talent and money.

Certainly for Liverpool and Man City, and probably even Chelsea too- Because of the money invested in the squads winning something big is an imperative, and they don't have the luxury to choose how they do it, it's just vital that they do do it.
Only us with our bizarre form of management and mission statement seem to be quite content to cruise along as we feel like.

Winning Titles with aplomb is a luxury only seasoned champions can afford.