Why was that not a red card along with a penalty?
England better rack up all the points they can before Belgium crushes them next week.
You mean the Harry Kane one?
No, the Kyle Walker one.
The Tunisian lad walked into his arm and threw himself to the ground, Harry Kane has been wrestled to the ground twice already and ref hasn’t looked at either.
Apparently being the England captain means the Tunisians can manhandle him with impunity.
oooooooooooooooohhhhh
Well… That was tense.
Now work on your finishing before the next game!
For all the talk that England are now producing players that can keep the ball, play in a more continental way, etc, it’s somewhat ironic that they win their game by doing the traditional English thing over and over again - i.e. set pieces and getting crosses into the box.
Thought Tunisia defended pretty well to be honest. Got away with what they could get away with and, in open play, England didn’t look like breaking them down in the 2nd half. Can’t defend a corner without fouling Kane though - and when they didn’t, he scored. Twice.
Realistically, England should’ve been 3 or 4 up after the first half but apart from Kane we looked a bit rusty.
Not sure that Tunisia actually had a shot anywhere near on target and they shut up shop like we thought they would. We’ll have to get a bit more clinical than that in future games but a wins a win and that’ll give them confidence.
Rashford has to start, he has the big stage mentality.
I have often thought that England, given that the main characteristic of a lot of our side is pace to burn, would be better off playing teams that are going to try and attack them, so they can hit on the counter. We routinely struggle, even in qualifying, to put lots of goals on sides who stick a lot of men behind the ball. I predict they’ll win against Panama, but won’t look good. They might lose against Belgium but it will probably be the performance that England looks best in.
The issue we’ve seen time and time again, for all teams, is the difficulty in breaking down the determined defence of a decent side (and Tunisia are certainly decent). England need pace and invention to do that, Kane gives you that, Rashford gives you that.
England v Belgium might well suit us more as it’ll be familiar Premier League territory for all concerned, Belgium will not find Tunisia a push-over either but Panama look vulnerable and less able to defend deep.
Well, four more teams to see tomorrow (Colombia, Japan, Poland, Senegal) and so far, IMHO, Belgium has been the best looking team, especially on offense, I really don’t see them being tested before the semi-finals at least, with Potugal/Spain as runners-up and Croatia and Mexico providing the dark horses who could make it a long way.
The second round of games is what I am looking forward too…unfortunately I will be in China on Vacation for rounds two and three, so hope I can find a place there to watch the games (probably late at night).
I thought Loctus-Cheek played well when he came on(I hadn’t heard of the guy before tonight). I agree with Rashford before Sterling. I still have zero confidence this England team can successfully withstand a sustained period of pressure from a half-way decent team.
I forgot that Costa Rica missed qualifying for the semis of WC 2014 by a PK loss to Holland.
Love how emphatic Kane’s header motion was.
I think my problem with VAR is not that it exists, but that it seems to be implemented so badly. True, all the other sports I can think of with review can either deal with the delay in restarting the clock (football and hockey for example) or don’t even have a clock (baseball and tennis for example) and don’t pride themselves on the running clock the way soccer does. It is not inconceivable that a foul is assessed late enough that a successful counter, performed quickly enough, could lead to a score before the referee is signaled. Even if that doesn’t happen, whistling play dead some random amount of time later is more disruptive than doing so right away.
Are you counting the US in 1930?
I did not know that. 1930 was a weird year.
World Cups prior to 1950 should not be used as a standard for much of anything, since participation was minimal, and conditions not optimal. That’s not taking anything away from the winners of 1930 (Uruguay) and '34 and '38 (Italy), but beyond that, it’s nothing to be that proud of.
Someone upthread said to start Vardy and Kane. I think that’s a bad idea; Vardy’s main value is running off the shoulders of the backs and he does best with an energetic partner (like Okazaki) who expends considerable effort covering all the rest of the area behind him. That’s not Kane’s strong suit; Kane’s best at just being in the right spot at the right time for a striker. Vardy’s best chance of appearing on the field for this England team is as a sub when the defense is already tired, and England must have a goal to get the result. And even then, frankly, I’d still put my money on Kane these days. He’s really got the golden touch.