Colombia v England - Tues 3rd July 7pm

And office biff out pretending to be interested in football. Saw some right sights. Lovely. Does this happen in shoreditch?

So glad I’m WFH tomorrow ; itnnk I need to y bed;

Come on England!

I wasnt keen on him, but We've finally got a manager that's got the national team playing as a team rather than a group of individuals. This isn't the best England squad, but it could well be the best TEAM we've had for a long time & Southgate deserves a lot of credit for that

I'm not going to lie, I was ugly crying for a bit there.

Well, well, well.

For what it's worth, I thought England were fucking awful from the time they scored onward (with the exception of a little flurry toward the end of the second half of Extra Time). It was the same old England, could not keep the ball, could not play it through midfield, lumped it into the channels and hoped. They dropped deeper and deeper and despite largely defending well, unless you're a team like Iceland or Sweden really built to defend like that (and England aren't though they were better than I expected), you're going to give up chances.

So much going forward reminded me of Robinson's Charlton. The players were SO far apart from each other. There was no movement in midfield, with the exception of Lingard who deserves a lot of credit for never stopping running. They had the ball and they had no idea what to do with it or how to look after it.

Last thing before I say good stuff: credit to Peckerman, he got his tactics spot on. They absolutely overloaded the midfield and forced England to give it away time and again at the edge of the final third. This is a Colombia side that is better than a lot of people (myself included probably) gave them credit for. But they're not brilliant. And Peckerman gets so much out of those players-they are far more than the sum of their parts. They're exactly the type of team--some youth, a lot of experience, with an excellent coach who defend well and know what they're good at, that you don't want to face in the knockout stages.

And despite all that, England are through. It's been a long, long, long time since England ground out a win like that in a tournament. Obviously longer still (Spain '96?) since they did it on penalties. And whatever happens in the next round, or the following round(s) should it come to that, this team can already say they broke the England penalty curse. It's a young group. It's a group whose core will still be together in two and four years, potentially with the addition of some really exciting young players, so everything after this is playing with the house's money.

Sweden up next. Sweden look like a carbon copy of Iceland in 2016, but with a better defense and worse attack. They will do exactly what they did to Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland, let England have the ball, soak up pressure, and hit them with speed on the counter and at set pieces. They're yet another team that are limited but who work very well as a unit, and who on paper look exactly like the type of side who would be good in a one-off tie.

But hey, at this point, why not?

Agreed- I definitely need to have had 8 or nine pints before this- we don’t like the skando’s

The Swedes will be what they always are - no need to elaborate on that point.

However a clue to how to unsettle them came in their game against the Germans, in the first fifteen minutes when the Germans played at a high pace, and used the width of the pitch to create large channels of space between the centre backs and the full backs. The Swedes were pushed to breaking point, survived a few near misses, but then broke away for the opening goal and then it all went a bit mental after that.

Honestly think that this game will suit England a lot better, as it will effectively be like a Premier League game, which we will me much happier with, in terms of pace and player behaviour etc.

Would definitely make a couple of changes for this one, Rose in for Young and possibly Loftus Cheek in for Ali, who doesn't look fit to me, and contributed nothing in this game - allied to this RLC's physicality should come in useful against the Swedes.

Still not convinced by Sterling, but you would have to say that he is still better than the alternatives.

Urghh euro 92,,,...

Watched BBC highlights and Murphy said same think as I did, (and others)
Why didn't Vardy take 3rd or 5th penalty ?
I'm sure he had an injury because he seemed to be holding his groin unless that is a nervous reaction !

No way would Henderson and Dier get ahead of Vardy. So the win through the penalities may be serendipitous BUT we are in the quarter finals and live to fight another day.

What did i miss?

I’m oretty sure the official allocation (for us at least) were pitiful.

This means they must have bought up loads through the fifa general sale, but they would have had no idea they would feature in that game until very recently, which would then suggest they must have been buying them up through touts at extortionate prices.

Don’t get me wrong, our support has been historically low, but it just doesn’t make sense to me with the South Americans.

SDAddick said:

I'm not going to lie, I was ugly crying for a bit there.

Well, well, well.

For what it's worth, I thought England were fucking awful from the time they scored onward (with the exception of a little flurry toward the end of the second half of Extra Time). It was the same old England, could not keep the ball, could not play it through midfield, lumped it into the channels and hoped. They dropped deeper and deeper and despite largely defending well, unless you're a team like Iceland or Sweden really built to defend like that (and England aren't though they were better than I expected), you're going to give up chances.

So much going forward reminded me of Robinson's Charlton. The players were SO far apart from each other. There was no movement in midfield, with the exception of Lingard who deserves a lot of credit for never stopping running. They had the ball and they had no idea what to do with it or how to look after it.

Last thing before I say good stuff: credit to Peckerman, he got his tactics spot on. They absolutely overloaded the midfield and forced England to give it away time and again at the edge of the final third. This is a Colombia side that is better than a lot of people (myself included probably) gave them credit for. But they're not brilliant. And Peckerman gets so much out of those players-they are far more than the sum of their parts. They're exactly the type of team--some youth, a lot of experience, with an excellent coach who defend well and know what they're good at, that you don't want to face in the knockout stages.

And despite all that, England are through. It's been a long, long, long time since England ground out a win like that in a tournament. Obviously longer still (Spain '96?) since they did it on penalties. And whatever happens in the next round, or the following round(s) should it come to that, this team can already say they broke the England penalty curse. It's a young group. It's a group whose core will still be together in two and four years, potentially with the addition of some really exciting young players, so everything after this is playing with the house's money.

Sweden up next. Sweden look like a carbon copy of Iceland in 2016, but with a better defense and worse attack. They will do exactly what they did to Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland, let England have the ball, soak up pressure, and hit them with speed on the counter and at set pieces. They're yet another team that are limited but who work very well as a unit, and who on paper look exactly like the type of side who would be good in a one-off tie.

But hey, at this point, why not?

I agreed with your thread up until the comment about Sweden. They're a decent side. They beat Mexico 3-0 and will be hard to break down, as the Swiss found out last night.

I was convinced that England were going to give away a stupid goal last night with the way they were playing in their own half after they's scored. It only takes one mistake and Dier and Walker almost made that mistake between them. I'm old enough to remember the 1970 defeat by Germany when we played like that when 2-0 up and we know what happened after that.

But we're through. That's what really counts. The Final is well within reach.

I've always thought that Tim Vickery has his finger on the button when it comes to South American football. Here is his view from the Colombian perspective. Worth a read ... but hey, we still won

Before the last of the second-round matches, legendary former Colombia striker Faustino Asprilla tweeted his prediction that "with the happy and beautiful football that has always been our characteristic, today we will beat cold England."

But Colombia's team selection made that a nonstarter.

There had indeed been some happy and beautiful football from Colombia in this World Cup. In their second game, they produced one of the most impressive performances so far to see off Poland 3-0. It was, sadly, the only time they had Juan Quintero in tandem with a fit James Rodriguez. The two left-footed attacking midfielders make the ball fizz, generating ideas and creating chances, bringing into the game the flying right winger Juan Cuadrado and the predatory striker Radamel Falcao.

But Rodriguez, to the enormous misfortune of the quality of the spectacle, was not fit to face England. For a man named after James Bond, it was a case of from Russia with frustration.

Colombia coach Jose Pekerman was clearly terrified of the prospect of facing England without his star player, so he set up his team with three purely defensive midfielders. Aware that Falcao offers little when isolated, he pushed Cuadrado close to him, advancing right-back Santiago Arias, with Carlos Sanchez covering the vulnerable space down that flank. Wilmer Barrios played the holding role, and there was also a place for Jefferson Lerma to complete the midfield block. This was a strange option. A far more logical choice would have been Matheus Uribe, sufficiently dynamic to get up in support of the strikers, offer Quintero a positive pass and carry out marking duties as well. Lerma could supply none of this, and his selection rendered Colombia impotent with the ball.

It was reminiscent of the bad old days of Colombian football, before the mid-1980s, when coach Francisco Maturana took over and built a fine side around the midfield talents of Carlos Valderrama. Maturana complained that before he took over, he was watching "Valderrama on the bench while [defensive midfielder] Pedro Sarmiento was playing, based on a starting point that the opponent is more important than one's own team."

By choosing Lerma, Pekerman was announcing that England were more important than Colombia and that he did not have the resources to go toe-to-toe with Gareth Southgate's team. This was also the starting point for the many antics of the Colombia side, the most noticeable being the constant attempts to surround the referee, all aimed at slowing the game and breaking up the rhythm at the moment when England were in the ascendency.

This made for a very poor spectacle -- and was doubly depressing given that Pekerman has traditionally been associated with fine passing football. But it was surely counterproductive. Because one of the lessons from Tuesday night in Moscow would seem to be that the current England side are not worthy of such respect and that even without James Rodriguez, Colombia still possessed the resources to play a more ambitious game.

There is no shame in being eliminated from the World Cup -- only one team gets to take the trophy home. But there should be disappointment in Colombia and from a coach with the CV of Pekerman with the manner in which the team approached the game. A country whose tradition stresses, as Tino Asprilla put it, "happy and beautiful football" deserves better.

Anyone still wishing we'd played the first team and 'kept momentum going' and got a win against Belgium?

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

I've always thought that Tim Vickery has his finger on the button when it comes to South American football. Here is his view from the Colombian perspective. Worth a read ... but hey, we still won

Before the last of the second-round matches, legendary former Colombia striker Faustino Asprilla tweeted his prediction that "with the happy and beautiful football that has always been our characteristic, today we will beat cold England."

But Colombia's team selection made that a nonstarter.

There had indeed been some happy and beautiful football from Colombia in this World Cup. In their second game, they produced one of the most impressive performances so far to see off Poland 3-0. It was, sadly, the only time they had Juan Quintero in tandem with a fit James Rodriguez. The two left-footed attacking midfielders make the ball fizz, generating ideas and creating chances, bringing into the game the flying right winger Juan Cuadrado and the predatory striker Radamel Falcao.

But Rodriguez, to the enormous misfortune of the quality of the spectacle, was not fit to face England. For a man named after James Bond, it was a case of from Russia with frustration.

Colombia coach Jose Pekerman was clearly terrified of the prospect of facing England without his star player, so he set up his team with three purely defensive midfielders. Aware that Falcao offers little when isolated, he pushed Cuadrado close to him, advancing right-back Santiago Arias, with Carlos Sanchez covering the vulnerable space down that flank. Wilmer Barrios played the holding role, and there was also a place for Jefferson Lerma to complete the midfield block. This was a strange option. A far more logical choice would have been Matheus Uribe, sufficiently dynamic to get up in support of the strikers, offer Quintero a positive pass and carry out marking duties as well. Lerma could supply none of this, and his selection rendered Colombia impotent with the ball.

It was reminiscent of the bad old days of Colombian football, before the mid-1980s, when coach Francisco Maturana took over and built a fine side around the midfield talents of Carlos Valderrama. Maturana complained that before he took over, he was watching "Valderrama on the bench while [defensive midfielder] Pedro Sarmiento was playing, based on a starting point that the opponent is more important than one's own team."

By choosing Lerma, Pekerman was announcing that England were more important than Colombia and that he did not have the resources to go toe-to-toe with Gareth Southgate's team. This was also the starting point for the many antics of the Colombia side, the most noticeable being the constant attempts to surround the referee, all aimed at slowing the game and breaking up the rhythm at the moment when England were in the ascendency.

This made for a very poor spectacle -- and was doubly depressing given that Pekerman has traditionally been associated with fine passing football. But it was surely counterproductive. Because one of the lessons from Tuesday night in Moscow would seem to be that the current England side are not worthy of such respect and that even without James Rodriguez, Colombia still possessed the resources to play a more ambitious game.

There is no shame in being eliminated from the World Cup -- only one team gets to take the trophy home. But there should be disappointment in Colombia and from a coach with the CV of Pekerman with the manner in which the team approached the game. A country whose tradition stresses, as Tino Asprilla put it, "happy and beautiful football" deserves better.

Great write up from Vickery. Colombia offered absolutely nothing for 75 minutes and were more intent on fouling and trying to get reactions out of us. If they'd actually gone for the win, they may well have beaten us.

Exiled_Addick said:

soapboxsam said:

Watched BBC highlights and Murphy said same think as I did, (and others)
Why didn't Vardy take 3rd or 5th penalty ?
I'm sure he had an injury because he seemed to be holding his groin unless that is a nervous reaction !

No way would Henderson and Dier get ahead of Vardy. So the win through the penalities may be serendipitous BUT we are in the quarter finals and live to fight another day.

My understanding is that Southgate and his team planned for penalties by looking st the mentality of the taker, not just the technique. They wanted players who they felt thrive in pressure situations.

I expected to see Vardy take one, but to be fair Henderson has been a penalty taker for his club, and none of them were bad penalties, the one that was saved was more a great save than poor penalty - the much maligned Ospina went the right way for nearly all of them.

To call the win serendipitous is a bit unfair.

RE: the penalties, I remember another recent interview with Southgate where he said we always rush when we get to the penalty spot yet actually the players have as long as they want to compose themselves before hitting the ball

With our shootout yesterday you could clearly see that was the case from the team whenever they stepped forward