That was the ugliest game I've ever seen.. Friendly, call it what you want - I thought the Netherlands was so awful that I can't even begin writing the words. The English? Their same old long-ball tactics were put to sleep, and I really was about to turn the channel - the ONLY thing that kept me watching was a bet I made on the game.

Now I think the U21 of Holland has a bright future; what I saw today was just poor football. If Dutch fans come and flame me at this thread, then really, you need glasses or digital cable to clear up your view. Same for the English.

And if I hear another comparison between Pelé and Rooney, I will seek another sport. This comparison is an embarrassment to football and its establishment.

Did I mention I fell asleep ?

Originally posted by trUnKez
That was the ugliest game I've ever seen.. Friendly, call it what you want - I thought the Netherlands was so awful that I can't even begin writing the words. The English? Their same old long-ball tactics were put to sleep, and I really was about to turn the channel - the ONLY thing that kept me watching was a bet I made on the game.



even more boring than Juventus vs AC Milan CL final? :confused:

Originally posted by fh_29
even more boring than Juventus vs AC Milan CL final? :confused:

atleast that game ended in a thrilling shootout

hmm weird

i thought the italians played boring football and the english played the best football

Originally posted by trUnKez
That was the ugliest game I've ever seen.. Friendly, call it what you want - I thought the Netherlands was so awful that I can't even begin writing the words. The English? Their same old long-ball tactics were put to sleep, and I really was about to turn the channel - the ONLY thing that kept me watching was a bet I made on the game.

Now I think the U21 of Holland has a bright future; what I saw today was just poor football. If Dutch fans come and flame me at this thread, then really, you need glasses or digital cable to clear up your view. Same for the English.

And if I hear another comparison between Pelé and Rooney, I will seek another sport. This comparison is an embarrassment to football and its establishment.

Did I mention I fell asleep ? Did you read about the game on worldcup.com again?

Originally posted by Vagegast
Did you read about the game on worldcup.com again?

I can tell why some European fans and squads are happy with how they perform. IF you HONESTLY thought that this was an interesting game, maybe you should try baseball?

Originally posted by santino
hmm weird

i thought the italians played boring football and the english played the best football
They had crap defenders, can't do much with that.

And you should try field hockey, if you think that at least one of those players gave a damn about that game. It's a friendly, in the middle of the week. Nobody cares about it and all they want is just to get it over with and get ready for the league game. It was only a friendly, not a qualifier or anything important. This game had a draw written all over it and you shouldn't be surprised that it ended that way. And if you think that Netherland or England play boring football watch EURO 2004 tapes then.

Same with this game. Holland's defense was nonexistent.. And I saw some people say Beckham did good. Of course someone has to do OK if there is no one else, and that is his job anyways. Summoned up, this game was pure horse crap.

When did I say it was interesting? Maybe you should try and attemp to get your head out of your ass and realize that this was what is commonly called a friendly. Lesson 1: often in between regular competition, the football associations contact each other and agree to have their national squads play against each other. They are designed so that the coaches of those national teams can try out new tactics and bring in new players to the squad.

If you had paid the slightest attention to any of the pre-game talk you would've known that van Basten decided to play defensively because it is one of Holland's weaker points. Plus, we were missing Sneijder, Van Nistelrooy, Robben, Davids, Bouma and Cocu.

Originally posted by trUnKez
Holland's defense was nonexistent. Originally posted by trUnKez
Did I mention I fell asleep ? Explains your cluelessness (Y)

Originally posted by Vagegast
When did I say it was interesting? Maybe you should try and attemp to get your head out of your ass and realize that this was what is commonly called a friendly. Lesson 1: often in between regular competition, the football associations contact each other and agree to have their national squads play against each other. They are designed so that the coaches of those national teams can try out new tactics and bring in new players to the squad.

If you had paid the slightest attention to any of the pre-game talk you would've known that van Basten decided to play defensively because it is one of Holland's weaker points. Plus, we were missing Sneijder, Van Nistelrooy, Robben, Davids, Bouma and Cocu.

Anything coming from you is nothing. So you are telling me because this is a friendly I have to sit and watch no shooting action? Are you crazy? When did you grow up? Do you know what real football is? Have you seen or experienced it? What kind of bullsh1t are you feeding these readers. You are one of those people who make up the reject-fan clan, meaning: you support bullsh1tters who get paid millions for nothing.

It's their job. They were tired you say? Were they tired 15 minutes in the game or what? 20? 30? Please shut up. You have no clue about what you are saying. You are an obsessed fan who will see the truth during World Cup 2006 when Mexico runs England down. Thanks.

Originally posted by trUnKez
You are an obsessed fan who will see the truth on World Cup 2006 when Mexico runs England down. The same way you overran California?

Originally posted by Vagegast
The same way you overran California?

It's already evident that you do not watch a lot of south american football.

Why don't you tune into some real teams nowadays, like River Plate? Your little fanboy attitude will truly be crushed and I will be happy. Maybe you didn't see how Mexico plays, but that's fine. They will show themselves sooner or later.

Obviously I'm not the only one with this opinion when you see people like Klinsman hailing Mexico. Perhaps I have a greater clue seeing as south american football is shown here daily.

Originally posted by trUnKez
Anything coming from you is nothing. So you are telling me because this is a friendly I have to sit and watch no shooting action? Are you crazy? When did you grow up? Do you know what real football is? Have you seen or experienced it? What kind of bullsh1t are you feeding these readers. You are one of those people who make up the reject-fan clan, meaning: you support bullsh1tters who get paid millions for nothing.

It's their job. They were tired you say? Were they tired 15 minutes in the game or what? 20? 30? Please shut up. You have no clue about what you are saying. You are an obsessed fan who will see the truth during World Cup 2006 when Mexico runs England down. Thanks.
Players don't really care about what's their job. You think they care about making us happy and give us entertaining football, when they have better things on their mind? This friendlies are pointless to everyone, except the national team coaches, who need them to try new things. You think England will play 4-3-3 in the WC with SWP playing forward? It didn't really work, which means they won't. This is the time for coaches to experiment, not to give entertainment to the fans. The fans get thier entertainment every weekend.

If I want to see a field filled with players who have the same attitude that Totti and Keane have, than I will watch Mexico games (Y)

If you think South American football is superior to European football, than why do you bother watching it? :confused:

Originally posted by Help?
Players don't really care about what's their job. You think they care about making us happy and give us entertaining football, when they have better things on their mind? This friendlies are pointless to everyone, except the national team coaches, who need them to try new things. You think England will play 4-3-3 in the WC with SWP playing forward? It didn't really work, which means they won't. This is the time for coaches to experiment, not to give entertainment to the fans. The fans get thier entertainment every weekend.

Hey I respect your opinion.. But I just remember watching Friendlie's back in the day in europe, and I can tell you - it was more fun. They need to stop with this lazy crap.

And yeah, anything is possible. I mean, if you saw world cup 02 you might remember beckham jumping over the ball (instead of letting it go in the out) on the 45th minute <first half>, and letting Ronaldinho score. That's what I call a bad player. No one will probably remember that, but I do seeing as England was winning 1 - zip.

Originally posted by Vagegast
If I want to see a field filled with players who have the same attitude that Totti and Keane have, than I will watch Mexico games (Y)

If you think South American football is superior to European football, than why do you bother watching it? :confused:

Good question, and because I still have some respect for you i'll tell you. It's simple.. I'm European and sometimes I hope that Europe will return to its good old days. See, I had no problem with Holland's U21. That was a nice squad (except for the blind goalie).. but I like to see what the future holds.

:confused:

Yes, the U-21 squad was decent and the game was entertaining. Although I have to say that the English were incredibly poor defensively. Amateur mistakes both times. The first time, they guy was trying to mark John by running in front of him. The second goal, the free kick, the defenders just let their man run.

Originally posted by Vagegast
:confused:

Yes, the U-21 squad was decent and the game was entertaining. Although I have to say that the English were incredibly poor defensively. Amateur mistakes both times. The first time, they guy was trying to mark John by running in front of him. The second goal, the free kick, the defenders just let their man run.

I strongly agree. The dutch were pushing the english back and I actually liked that because that's the good old dutch style. I think the Netherlands will choose 6 players from the u21 for wc2006. What do you think? I mean, it's well possible.

Guys from the current U-21 squad that can make the 2006 squad:

Nicky Hofs (Feyenoord)
Collins John (Fulham)
Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (Heerenveen)
Robin van Persie (Arsenal)

Originally posted by Vagegast
Guys from the current U-21 squad that can make the 2006 squad:

Nicky Hofs (Feyenoord)
Collins John (Fulham)
Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (Heerenveen)
Robin van Persie (Arsenal)

I also thought Joger was good (actually very good). He kept the game in line.

Rojer :f***:

Stop calling Eldridge that :mad:

Originally posted by rpvankasteren
Rojer :f***:

Stop calling Eldridge that :mad:

Yeah I double checked his name cause it was the first time I saw him play and they spit out that other name, nontheless he's a good player.

I think that it wasn't more boring then other friendly games....

I watched the highlights. Ireland x Portugal was worse (Y)

Actually I enjoyed SWP, but other than that there was nothing interesting going on........ Ashley Cole was also a busy man seeing as most of the dutch attacks were coming from his side........

If we sack Sven then we'll challenge for honours.

Look at England's sqaud on papar.

Gerrard and Lampard can make one of the top midfield pairings in the world. Terry and Ferdiandn or Campbell is probably the best centre-back pairing in teh world. The ful backs are top quality. Plus three young highly talented strikers, wright-phillips who can become a top class player.

It's only a matter of time till England perform.

Originally posted by trUnKez
You are an obsessed fan who will see the truth during World Cup 2006 when Mexico runs England down. Thanks.

You, ese, are a disgrace to the name Denis. :(

Originally posted by Dreath
If we sack Sven then we'll challenge for honours.

Look at England's sqaud on papar.

Gerrard and Lampard can make one of the top midfield pairings in the world. Terry and Ferdiandn or Campbell is probably the best centre-back pairing in teh world. The ful backs are top quality. Plus three young highly talented strikers, wright-phillips who can become a top class player.

It's only a matter of time till England perform.

Whilst I'm not saying that England will definitely fail, many other teams have had that sort of quality throughout the years and have won very little.

The Dutch have never won the World Cup despite their great generations of players throughout the years.

Brazil, with talent galore, didn't win the World Cup between 1974-1994.

On paper England, with a bit more experience, can do great things, but the problem is that in recent tournaments, they can only chourn out one really good performance... and that's not enough.

For what it's worth, I feel a 3-5-2 would be far more favourable to England. Sol, Terry and Rio, with SWP and Wayne Bridge as full-backs with a license to support attacks, Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham would perhaps be a problem, but I believe would work (Lampard supporting with runs beyond the front two) and Gerrard breaking up attacks and spraying passes out to the wings. With Bridge and SWP there would be no shortage of running or quality coming from each flank, whilst not forgoing any defensive responsibilities. Beckham... just being Beckham really.

Rooney and Owen up front. I suppose a lot of the tactics would be based on the counter attack, but I think this would be extremely effective for England with the pace, passing ability and finishing prowess they have at their disposal.

Actually, that sounds pretty good... SWP did start playing at RB early on...

Wouldn't Ashley Cole be better than Bridge at this?

Bu it's a very good idea.

Originally posted by SlowSilver
Wouldn't Ashley Cole be better than Bridge at this?

Bu it's a very good idea.

They could always rotate (like they will be doing at club level next season :evil: )

Originally posted by Jambo Den
For what it's worth, I feel a 3-5-2 would be far more favourable to England. Sol, Terry and Rio, with SWP and Wayne Bridge as full-backs with a license to support attacks, Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham would perhaps be a problem, but I believe would work (Lampard supporting with runs beyond the front two) and Gerrard breaking up attacks and spraying passes out to the wings. With Bridge and SWP there would be no shortage of running or quality coming from each flank, whilst not forgoing any defensive responsibilities. Beckham... just being Beckham really.

Rooney and Owen up front. I suppose a lot of the tactics would be based on the counter attack, but I think this would be extremely effective for England with the pace, passing ability and finishing prowess they have at their disposal.


i agree.......

the problem with england is that they don't have the technique or the quality to keep possession in international football...which is suicidal in my opinion....

so a 5 man midfield should be a default england tactic..... regardless of the squad selection i think they will do better with a 3-5-2 switching to 5-3-2 while defending...

Glenn Hoddle used this tactic and won the le tornoi in 1997 before the world cup by beating italy, france though losing to brazil.... he went to italy and needed a draw to qualify to the world cup..... England were able to keep possession and were unlucky not to win....they did do the job though and Paul Ince's picture with a blooded head may occur to everybody's mind....

in France 98' Hoddle decided not to pick Gazza the only player with the ability to keep the ball....Ian wright was seen sitting on the roofs of stadiums raher than playing (injury).... England had the likes of Owen (great pace) dion Dublin (aerial threat).....Batty and Ince and Scholes and Sheringham and Shearer and Adams a great team that was talented enough to win the world cup or at least make the semi's...then we all know what happened (Beckham's gayness)...

wasted opportunity:kader: