Group B: England, Iran, USA, Wales

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheBigIguana said:
Because he's not that much better right now. I agree he will be, but the gap isn't huge now.

And also because the issues were in midfield because the US (like I said they would) had the better of it in there. Foden struggles to get service just like Kane and Raheem did.
Click to expand...

He is far better than Mason Mount could ever dream of being. We have 10 men with him on the pitch, he is absolutely useless. Look, Pep Guardiola rates Foden enough to be a key part of his team. Gareth Southgate who has done nothing but fail in his career, doesn’t. Read into that what you will, one of them is in my camp and the other is in yours.

The issues were not lack of service, the issues were the complete lack intent to even try to score a goal. The manager came out and said after the game that he was happy with the result and the performance. He set up for the 0-0 and the players executed his game plan perfectly.
 
MikeH72 said:
He is far better than Mason Mount could ever dream of being. We have 10 men with him on the pitch, he is absolutely useless. Look, Pep Guardiola rates Foden enough to be a key part of his team. Gareth Southgate who has done nothing but fail in his career, doesn’t. Read into that what you will, one of them is in my camp and the other is in yours.

The issues were not lack of service, the issues were the complete lack intent to even try to score a goal. The manager came out and said after the game that he was happy with the result and the performance. He set up for the 0-0 and the players executed his game plan perfectly.
Click to expand...
Foden is a winger and Mount is being used (wrongly) in midfield. I agree he's better than Mount but that exact change doesn't work. Pep wouldn't use Foden there either.

You settled for 0-0 because you were stymied in the middle and the US had started to get the upperhand territorially in the second half. It was wise in the circumstances but the problem of not having a good midfield is not going away. They can maybe try Gallagher but he's probably too similar to Bellingham. Henderson and Rice is too defensive. Mount plays as a forward now and isn't able to do enough as a midfielder. No good answers.
 
TheBigIguana said:
Foden is a winger and Mount is being used (wrongly) in midfield. I agree he's better than Mount but that exact change doesn't work. Pep wouldn't use Foden there either.

You settled for 0-0 because you were stymied in the middle and the US had started to get the upperhand territorially in the second half. It was wise in the circumstances but the problem of not having a good midfield is not going away. They can maybe try Gallagher but he's probably too similar to Bellingham. Henderson and Rice is too defensive. Mount plays as a forward now and isn't able to do enough as a midfielder. No good answers.
Click to expand...

No, we settled for the 0-0 as soon as the game kicked off. Had absolutely nothing to do with how the US played. The manager set us up for a 0-0 as he always does at major tournaments. Don’t flatter yourselves too much, this manager is well known for being ultra negative and dour, and it’s not at all good enough with the talent he has at his disposal. He is the worst manager in world football in my opinion, I think Benitez would do a better job with this England squad.
 
MikeH72 said:
No, we settled for the 0-0 as soon as the game kicked off. Had absolutely nothing to do with how the US played. The manager set us up for a 0-0 as he always does at major tournaments. Don’t flatter yourselves too much, this manager is well known for being ultra negative and dour, and it’s not at all good enough with the talent he has at his disposal. He is the worst manager in world football in my opinion, I think Benitez would do a better job with this England squad.
Click to expand...
You used the same system that scored 6 goals the previous match mate. The US getting the better of the center clearly mattered. Don't flatter yourselves too much.
 
TheBigIguana said:
You used the same system that scored 6 goals the previous match mate. The US getting the better of the center clearly mattered. Don't flatter yourselves too much.
Click to expand...

No we did not hahahahaha. You have to be taking the piss at this point. Just because the starting XI was the same doesn’t mean the approach was anywhere near the same.
 
MikeH72 said:
No, we settled for the 0-0 as soon as the game kicked off. Had absolutely nothing to do with how England played. The manager set us up for a 0-0 as he always does at major tournaments. Don’t flatter yourselves too much, this manager is well known for being ultra negative and dour, and it’s not at all good enough with the talent he has at his disposal. He is the worst manager in world football in my opinion, I think Benitez would do a better job with this American squad.
Click to expand...
Definitely agreed.
 
MikeH72 said:
No we did not hahahahaha. You have to be taking the piss at this point. Just because the starting XI was the same doesn’t mean the approach was anywhere near the same.
Click to expand...
The approach was altered, at least in part, because the other side was much better. Believe it or not two sides played the match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top