Dr Pepper
Registered User
You just know Kane won't receive even half of the vitriol that was heaped at Saka (and Sancho, and Rashford) after their Euro flops.
GWT: World Cup - Quarterfinals - England v. France
- Thread starter bluesfan94
- Start date
You just know Kane won't receive even half of the vitriol that was heaped at Saka (and Sancho, and Rashford) after their Euro flops.
Bellingham was a long shot. Maguire had a good header but not on target.
So we're left with Kane and the pens. As I said.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
You can’t just pick and choose which count as chances, dude.
Bellingham forced a very good save out of
Lloris - that’s absolutely a chance.
Maguire hit the post - that’s absolutely a chance (the notion that a shot hitting the post means it doesn’t count as a chance is very funny to me).
England had more chances on the night. France was more ruthless. The more ruthless side wins.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Ah Evilo, it wouldn't be you without a shifted goalpost, now would it!
I didn't for a second say that those weren't chances, nothing of the sort. I was taking umbrage with you saying, with patent absurdity, that a shot doesn't count as a chance because it hit the post.
Mbappe hitting Row Z? A "wonderful chance." Maguire hitting the post? Doesn't count, apparently.
No the absurdity is that you're only counting one side and then saying they had better chances.
The xG shows that outside the pens France had more quality chances. Which is obvious since Pickford had to make an incredible save.
Yes focing a save is somehow a better chance than shooting the outside of the post.
So you're moving the goalposts when you're trying to imply France was "ruthless" and England "didn't take their chances" when even the xG prove you wrong.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Man, all I came in here for was to say that it's dumb as bricks to claim that a shot hitting the post doesn't count as a chance. I stand by that.
Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 45,300
- 9,465
Jussi
Registered User
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Look, I think the german team that TMYK is comparing a Kane-less-England too, could've made a run at this tourney if we hadn't started Neuer & Müller over ter Stegen and Moukoko or Füllkrug.
So I'm not saying that england being pretty middling everywhere outside of the creative midfield & attack, means they can't ever reach the levels we've seen from them over the past 5.5 years again. Just that their talent pool would look a lot like ours without Harry Kane up front.
Similarly, it's not that GK is a crippling weakness for them, just that it's not a significant strength...and with their defenders, I think they need GK to be a strength for them not to be vulnerable to conceding unfortunately timed goals.
Which was one of the big reasons I wanted ter Stegen to start over Neuer even during the summer, when Neuer was looking like vintage neuer in the NL...I knew that he wouldn't be able to steal goals for us like we would need with our defense, whereas MAtS could if he brought his A-game.
It wasn't a major problem for them against us in the NL or in their tourney matches that I've watched, but it hasn't been a major strength either...and with their CBs I think they need a keeper that can "steal a game" better than what they have.
Wee Baby Seamus
Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Please. Explain it to me like I'm five years old. Like I am a wee child.
How can a situation where Mbappe hit Row Z be a "wonderful chance" if Maguire hitting the post isn't a chance and you're "left with Kane and the pens." How can these two things be true simultaneously. Please, spell it out for me. Answer the question directly, no skirting around it, no shitf***ery. Tell me like I'm five how a Row Z shot counts as a wonderful chance according to the same guy who said something isn't a chance if it hits the post.
John Price
Bet
- Sep 19, 2008
- 373,692
- 24,723
See you're moving the posts again.
Take a look at the discussion again.
Someone said the xG proved England dominated and that France was just ruthless.
To which I explained that the xG says the contrary since the pens count for most of England xG.
I then go and say England 's main chance was Kane and that they didn' t have much else.
Then you get into that and say they had plenty of chances. You include a low percentage shot from Bellingham and Maguire's header which didn't require a save (but was obviously dangerous).
THEN, and only then I said (given the context of the discussion) that France had chances too (as the xG showed they had more) by giving examples (Giroud was the best chance of the game outside the goals, Rabiot and then Mbappe botching a great situation).
That you chose to equal Maguire and Mbappe's chance is your choice and yours only. I didn't do it, you did.
And the lol, as not for you btw.
Incubajerks
Registered User
Not to get involved, and I absolutely loathe xG as a stat, but this is the xG from the game:
xG England 2.36-1.08 France (Actual score England 1-2 France)
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 66,246
- 12,201
So again, other than the things that actually happened during the match, France was better
No, other than events that had nothing to do with it, England didn't "outplay" and outchance France.
ScottishCanuck
Registered User
Even I think England outplayed France. That should tell you something.
Especially second half.
Especially second half.
They really took it to them, I said so in the thread during the game. Doesn't mean they had more chances, as the numbers prove.
One thing I learned from this game is that it doesn't matter where your foot was when you are fouled, but rather where you weer fouled, or to say it better, in Kane's case the spot of the foul is his upper shin rather than the foot. France escaped a penalty by the narrowest of margins there.
