- This topic has 26 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Giz-a-break Cav.
England haven’t exactly excelled in the World Cup for the last 50 years. Only natural for media to be extremely pessimistic before the tournament started – under-estimating England’s actual chance… Then winning the two games, latest 5-0 by half time with a really good performance – in particular both that Stones goal and Lingard’s were (although against poor oposition) top class. So from dismissing our chances they now see we’ve got a chance, going the complete other way. It’s what our media do, it’s never the middle ground because middle ground isn’t interesting. Of course, talking them up also means they can sh.. on them if things go wrong. 18/1 before the tournament started was well worth taking, 9/1 now is about right… I’d say 9/1 over-estimates our chance if winning our Group and under-estimates it if finishing second (probably a lot easier route to the Final).Value Is EverythingIf winning the group very probable, Kev – likely to play Brazil.
If second in the group I’d make us marginal favourites over Mexico in the quarter before losing in the Semi to Spain.Value Is EverythingI think England have a good chance oh going all the way… to the final at least .There is no outstanding team in the competition .
I still remember 1990 when the Germans put England out on penalties . I felt during that competition it was England’s for the taking . That England squad of players was better than their 1966 squad , which only contained 3 players of true class : Moore , Bobby Charlton and Jimmy Greaves ( a much better player than Hurst or Hunt ) , who sadly , for him , got injured in an earlier match .
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I wouldn’t say distance out from ’66 is directly proportional to media pessimism, Ginge. Not if 2006 is taken into account when the “Golden Generation” incited peak triumphalism. At least the current lot were gracious enough to wait for a ball to be kicked in anger before the crowing started I suppose.
I’d worry about the central midfield, very gung-ho playing Ali/Sterling/Lingard in front of Henderson, who is not a top defensive midfielder by any stretch. Can see better teams running through and getting behind that, without too much difficulty. On all evidence Stones is overrated too imo.
18/1 a good bet though if you got it.
I wouldn’t say distance out from ’66 is directly proportional to media pessimism, Ginge. Not if 2006 is taken into account when the “Golden Generation” incited peak triumphalism. At least the current lot were gracious enough to wait for a ball to be kicked in anger before the crowing started I suppose.
I’d worry about the central midfield, very gung-ho playing Ali/Sterling/Lingard in front of Henderson, who is not a top defensive midfielder by any stretch. Can see better teams running through and getting behind that, without too much difficulty. On all evidence Stones is overrated too imo.
18/1 a good bet though if you got it.
I think the crowing about our chance in 2006 was probably because the media had called it the “Golden Generation”. True, if I remember rightly the optimism wasn’t the same amongst bookmakers. Although bookmakers often go the other way. However, just because the Golden Generation World Cup didn’t do well, doesn’t neccessarily mean people were wrong in saying how good the team were going in to it. eg Going in to the FA Cup Man City were thought to have an excellent chance. Just because they performed poorly and lost against Wigan, does that mean their chance was wrongly assessed? Are their team really that bad?
FA Cup is over in one game. World Cup can be over in three if not playing to full potential – as England didn’t. Particularly as confidence plays a far more important role in football than it does racing… and that is magnified umpteen times in the World Cup – including mood of the team going in to it and expectation leading to presure. Expectation of the Golden Generation led to greater presure which can also damage a team’s performance, especially if confidence takes a dip. So although a team can be supposedly in “good form” going in to a competition, mood and expectation can effect a team’s confidence/results. If I remember rightly the mood wasn’t great going in to 2006, and after one poor performance it led to a further drop in confidence… and another.
I think this year the mood of the squad and manager seems a lot better to me and expectation a lot lower going in to it (lower than it should’ve been). Although had Kane not scored in injury time against Tunisia it could’ve been all over by now.
Confidence hits all teams. For many decades I remember Spain being the perennial under-achievers. Then they won one tournament which led to another… Germany always had it, but they’ve also had unrealistic expectation. Poor lead up meant they weren’t in great form. One bad performance leads to…
But one goal and confidence can return.
Value Is EverythingWith both teams already progressed I don’t think even the game against Belgium will show us if we have a better than 9/1 chance of winning the Cup. I would say no at present mainly due to England’s consistency, the possibility of the dreaded penalty shoot-out and the outrageous luck of teams like Germany
Of course the best team not to win the World Cup were the 1982 Brazilians. As an 11 year old kid I was heartbroken that a team consisting of Socrates, Zico, Eder and Falcao were humbled by Paolo Rossi. A shame the defence wasn’t up to scratch
Nah, might green up if reaching the Final, Cav; if the price is right.
Pride in our team is understandable, bit uncomfortable with this country-wide confidence though. We’ve only played one top team so far when losing against Belgium in a Reserves match. Tunisia, Panama, Columbia, Sweden – they aren’t Croatia, let alone France. Bookies 60/40 to reach the final is about right imo.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.