World Cup: QF: Sweden vs. England, 7/7/2018

[robertmac43]

I think there are a couple of typos in the post description. It says "QF" and then has both England and Sweden beside it

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

It mostly depends on Forsberg IMO. I can see him getting more freedom this game. Don't think England will be man-marking him as hard as the Swiss did.

 

[robertmac43]

Just do not concede a pen and you will be fine Sweden :p

 

[DDRhockey]

English football fans are like Canadians hockey fans. Arrogant. Only difference is that canada can actually back it up with being the best country.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

English football fans are like Canadians hockey fans. Arrogant. Only difference is that canada can actually back it up with being the best country.

England never claim to be the best country.

 

[Eye of Ra]

England never claim to be the best country.

 

[firewagonHOCKEY]

I think Forsberg has really shown why he is so highly regarded. With a player like that to stir the drink that is Sweden they can do a lot.
Anyone named Forsberg is automatically good at their chosen sport.
Peter,
Filip,
Magdalena,
Emil

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

What did you misunderstand?

 

[bluumax]

2 pages of comments and only myself and another poster actually talking about the football instead of misinformed stereotypes.

Think that shows where the true arrogance lies.

Maybe instead of projecting our national insecurities we can just talk about the game?

 

[canuckster19]

Sweden got pace? Where?

I haven't thought about it much, but could Sweden be the slowest team in the WC? They break quickly at times, but that isn't because they got players that run especially fast.

Unfortunately I think England matches up nicely with Sweden. That back 3 should be fairly comfortable with Berg and Toivonen (even more so if they go with Cahill instead of Walker). And I fear Kane might just pop up once even if Sweden are excellent at defending. Sweden looked tired after around 65 mins yesterday, but even if the Swiss are fairly decent they do lack someone up front even close to the quality of Kane. Sterling could also cause problems if he ends up one on one with one of the CDs. That is difficult, but if too much focus is placed on Kane space might just open up - and at times Sterling is tricky to handle in tight spaces.

I only see two reasons for Sweden to have much of a shot at winning. 1) England get frustrated and loses their discipline (did happen a bit against Colombia - it didn't look very organized as soon as GS started using his subs and Kane had ran out of gas) 2) Sweden are slightly more rested with England playing later and obviously 30mins longer. Both physically and mentally that might drain them a bit more.

Yeah I don't believe for a minute that Sweden has better pace than England. Ever since the qualifications against Italy, Sweden always looks gassed by around the 75th minute, and they certainly don't have the counter-attack quality that Colombia has, nor the depth players England has to cover those last 15, especially with Lustig out, that's devastating for the Swedish back line.

They're my 1 and 2 fav teams so I hate that they're playing this soon in the knockouts, Sweden is going to have to score early and hope parking the bus works for 45+ minutes, otherwise I think this game goes to England

I hope Southgate goes with Kane-Vardy up front this time, I just don't see how Stirling is going to be able to do anything against that D. That is if Vardy is ready.

 

[joe89]

It's a very good matchup for Sweden playing a structured, methodical opponent and that's why we have a good record against England. We like to play that game and we don't get stressed out or unfocused when nothing happens for longer stretches. The longer it's 0-0, the better for us. For them the opposite.

England's got very good players but Kane is the only world-class difference maker. The stars of Germany, Mexico and Switzerland managed so score one goal combined on Sweden in open play. The other was a free kick. I rank England mid-pack in that company. The one thing that stands out though is that England pose more of a threat in the air, and can potentially make corners more costly to allow.

It's a game where a timely goal goes a long way for us. And I expect a few VAR situations.

 

[bluumax]

Sweden got pace? Where?

I haven't thought about it much, but could Sweden be the slowest team in the WC? They break quickly at times, but that isn't because they got players that run especially fast.

Unfortunately I think England matches up nicely with Sweden. That back 3 should be fairly comfortable with Berg and Toivonen (even more so if they go with Cahill instead of Walker). And I fear Kane might just pop up once even if Sweden are excellent at defending. Sweden looked tired after around 65 mins yesterday, but even if the Swiss are fairly decent they do lack someone up front even close to the quality of Kane. Sterling could also cause problems if he ends up one on one with one of the CDs. That is difficult, but if too much focus is placed on Kane space might just open up - and at times Sterling is tricky to handle in tight spaces.

I only see two reasons for Sweden to have much of a shot at winning. 1) England get frustrated and loses their discipline (did happen a bit against Colombia - it didn't look very organized as soon as GS started using his subs and Kane had ran out of gas) 2) Sweden are slightly more rested with England playing later and obviously 30mins longer. Both physically and mentally that might drain them a bit more.

Sweden dont seem to have individual pace, but do break quick. Just like in hockey; the puck moves faster than the man, and they seem to move the ball up field pretty well.

I think your right about us matching up well, but Cahill over Walker would be a mistake i think, considering how well this back 3 have played and how well Walker links up with Trippier.
I still dont understand the use of Stirling- with his pace he is begging to be put on past the 70min mark to run at some tired legs, too many times against Colombia (and pretty much every other team) he gets a break and moves away from goal, which is fine if you can deliver a quality ball.... but he can't. A combo of Rashford and Stirling coming on for the last 20 would be horrific for worn out defenders.

I dont think we will have any discapline issues this game, England lost their rag a few times but Colombia were playing some pretty infuriating games.

 

[FlamerForLife]

According to sky sports Vardy tweaked his groin in extra time and is doubtful for this match. Vardy was originally slated to take the 5th penalty but after tweaking his groin they decided Dier would take it.

 

[Suiteness]

After the loss against Belgium, some pundits were claiming England had a clear path to the finals, as if Spain and Croatia didn't exist. The sheer audacity.

 

[Siamese Dream]

Yes, it's the garbage English media that are at fault why nobody likes England in football. They've accomplished absolutely nothing, yet they sound like they're the greatest thing that happened in football since the invention of the sport, every time. It's not being mediocre at it that is a problem, it's the chest thumping and arrogance, where you again look at the garbage media.

I like that Sweden faces England in the QF, it's a 50/50 game, but if you listen to English media, England will win this game 99/100 times. And sure, Sweden plays boring football, but so are the majority of all the teams this tournament. It's the dead ball era and FIFA is always fine with that, they get rich either way.

I'm not impressed by Sweden's game, but neither am I impressed by England. The only team I guess I'm impressed by how they play - that is left - is Uruguay, but they have Suarez, so it's not like I'm cheering for them.

You only had to listen to any England pundit not named Gary Lineker before the Belgium game to see this attitude in action. All the talk was about losing on purpose to have an easier route to the final, automatically assuming that England would beat any of the diddy teams they faced in the round of 16 before having to play Brazil (or not). Gary Lineker stressed that England hadn't won a knockout game in however many years, so they should take things one game at a time, which of course is completely right. If you don't face Brazil in the 1/4 you'll probably have to beat them in the final, if you're better you will win so what difference does it make if you play them now or later, even if it's not Brazil you'll still have to play a good team in the final to win it all.

Here's a nice quote from @Ceremony following the loss to Iceland in the Euros to further reiterate the point

I've no doubt that the England players underestimated Iceland. Their entire ****ing country did. Discussing Hart's mistake at halftime, the punditry chat is "will he be dropped for the quarter-final?" The expectation, the arrogance, call it what you will, I don't doubt there was a sense of having to turn up being all that was required.

 

[Chloraflora]

Most of us English folk know we aren't all that great and haven't been for awhile. Don't listen to the media and "pundits", they're just talking heads there to get ratings and sell headlines. The fact we're in the quarter finals surpasses any expectation we had.

So, Sweden. It's going to be a hard, even, grind-em-out kind of game as it is every time we play each other. Lustig being suspended helps no doubt, but we still have to play better than we did against Colombia or we'll be going home.

 

[Siamese Dream]

Most of us English folk know we aren't all that great and haven't been for awhile. Don't listen to the media and "pundits", they're just talking heads there to get ratings and sell headlines. The fact we're in the quarter finals surpasses any expectation we had.

So, Sweden. It's going to be a hard, even, grind-em-out kind of game as it is every time we play each other. Lustig being suspended helps no doubt, but we still have to play better than we did against Colombia or we'll be going home.

It's not just the pundits, with every victory more and more people are starting to think "football's coming home" - the mere fact this song/phrase exists is extremely telling in itself. Every tournament everyone knows in the back of their mind what the chances are, but will still genuinely believe "We are England so we can do it" - you do have to admire the glass half full mentality though.

I think a huge chunk of it comes from the belief that England have enough talent that they can beat any team in the world "on their day" which is maybe true, but to win the tournament you need to be consistent and string together a number of great performances to go all the way, England can rarely afford to have a bad game and need all the stars to align for them, while a better side like Brazil are more likely to be able to get away with a couple of mediocre performances along the way. The so-called "golden generation" of 2002 needed a last minute moment of brilliance from David Beckham to even qualify for that World Cup, and it's things like that which contribute to the grand delusion and makes everyone forget to question why they were even in a position where it was needed in the first place.

 

[phisherman]

Also the bandwagonners that have no clue about soccer and only pay attention during the World Cup that all of a sudden cheer for England every World Cup because they think they're the best team in the world. They're the ones that add to the England hatred.

 

[al secord]

Why do people hate England so much?

I think they're jealous of our beautiful teeth.

 

[al secord]

He's right. I don't know anyone who gave them a chance to win the world cup going in. Not many people believe they will now, even though they have a favorable path to the finals.

 

[al secord]

England will hope to score early, force Sweden to push forward and take risks. But I see this as a very boring, defensive game. 1-0. For who? I couldn't tell you.

 

[Siamese Dream]

I'll also add that it's not just the fans people dislike, but the players also. This maybe doesn't apply to the current generation since they're mostly quite inexperienced and don't yet have the stink of failure on them from the past, and I don't really get the same impression from them as I did previous generations.

Go back through the England teams in recent history, they were riddled with players who were very good or even great for their clubs, but always underperformed on the international stage and oozed disinterest and apathy while doing so. There was never any passion compared to players from other nations, you always got the impression from the England players that they were all primadonnas who only cared about the funny money of the Premier league.

I think this is another thing that contributes towards the hatred of England.

 

[Venkman]

It's not just the pundits, with every victory more and more people are starting to think "football's coming home" - the mere fact this song/phrase exists is extremely telling in itself. Every tournament everyone knows in the back of their mind what the chances are, but will still genuinely believe "We are England so we can do it" - you do have to admire the glass half full mentality though.

The memes have begun. Love how people get upset over that song. No one actually believes it's coming home.

 

[Stray Wasp]

It's not just the pundits, with every victory more and more people are starting to think "football's coming home" - the mere fact this song/phrase exists is extremely telling in itself.

The lyrics to the original, 1996 version of football's coming home aren't triumphalist at all. One of the reason many real fans took to it was precisely that it doesn't make grandiose claims at odds with England's actual results. I can believe that 22 years later people might sing the lyrics without paying attention to their meaning. After all, consider all the pop / rock songs belted out by cheerful hordes who misunderstand the author's intent.

Whether the English fanbase contains more arrogant supporters than most I really can't say- I haven't met most of the 55.6 million population despite the advantage of having lived in the country all my life, let alone had time to measure their footballing opinions against my top-of-the-range arroganceometer. So I congratulate all the overseas-based posters who appear to have managed to do this.

Admittedly, the English footballing media is often terrible. That said, as is so often the case its the loudmouthed morons who drown out the not inconsiderable number of reasonable voices. I think an element of that applies to the fanbase, too. I suspect that England is also a nation where the culture of playing up obnoxiously for the cameras is more entrenched than elsewhere, which eggs on the element whose entire world view appears to be shaped by The Sun Book of History.

 

[Evilo]

Sweden really didn't beat France beyond the score though.
Toivonen plays for Toulouse.