What does overexaggerate mean? Is there an acceptable level of exaggeration and anything above that is overexaggeration? Our young team overachieved. No-one I’ve seen in the media has exaggerated the achievement. Yes, the England team is quite good and will hopefully improve as they are inexperienced. 4th in the WC isn’t bad! Comfortably a top 10 team. No doubt the US team will one day overcome the might of Panama. What dreams are made of.
What does overachieved mean? Is there an acceptable level of achievement and anything above is.... LIGHT BULB!
Got to be grateful that Southgate has pretty much created the new generation this tournament, I feel we are well set for future tournaments with most players at a good age and hopefully the likes of Foden, Loftus Cheek, Sancho, Mount etc will step up. I think we will see England progressing far in tournaments more regularly from now to on.
You absolute tool! So what is an acceptable level of exaggeration? If that is what you are implying. Surely the answer is none.
"Overachievement? Exaggeration"? Hmmm. For mine, 'Overwritten, overblown, overbelieved'. Probably the players started believing everything being written about them (reminding all about 1966), how well they played, the chances, the draw, the teams that didnt make the finals, the teams that didnt qualify for quarters... = all going England's way, ie, all England needed to do was turn up to every game leading up to the Final & the World Cup was England's. English Premier League is claimed as the best elite club football competition in the world. England had every player selected from current 'home grown' clubs. The last time a coach from a footballing nation to boast that all their players were home grown was Italy in 2006- where is Italy in 2018? Also, it's interesting to note that the player who put England to the sword & relegated to 4th spot was the Belgian striker Eden Hazard, courtesy of Chelsea & English Premier League. "Pace & power" isnt the answer, neither is dominating possession as Barcelona found out in Champions League.
"Our young team has over achieved" So you expected one of Tunisia, Panama, Columbia or sweden to beat us then !?
I do not think the players overlooked anyone and thought they just had to turn up. Some people got carried away with "It's coming home" and started stating it as fact . Some of these people are now backtracking with "It was just a joke" which is true to a lot of people but false for others. I do not think you can judge the entire nation based on a select few people and that goes for either side of this debate. This match was another showcase of England's lack of creativity. They had more of the ball than Belgium, but who looked like scoring when they had it? England need a creative midfielder badly because you can not rely on set pieces all the time when you come up against a good defence like Belgium's.
No offense but I never thought this England could win the World Cup. The only remarkable player you have is Kane at the moment, I didn't even know some of the others but I do not doubt they are decent. It could be a good thing, don't get me wrong, you win with organization not only with big names, but the only two times you faced a stronger team you lost. I think England will be a good team in two o four years.
The future is very promising with these players coming through and the domination of England at youth tournaments. Until a few years ago we couldn't win a youth tournament. You mention grade A talents there but didn't even mention Sessengnon who is a real star in the making. Not all these players are going to make it but there's more of them now and more well rounded talents. Foden looks a player we've waited a long time for. England were never a match for a good international side here, we're still between generations. Belgium have got a lot of players around 30 and that's a lost generation for England (26-32). The likes of Sturridge, Wellbeck, Walcott, Jones, Wilshere, Smalling were meant to be top talents - heading towards their peak at this tournament - but for different reasons, typically injury induced stagnation, haven't lived up to that. Then there's Rooney who is still within that age group but had a sharp decline. Then there's the likes of Lallana, Chamberlain and Rose who were injured most of last season and not ready for the tournament when they could have made a big difference. You look at Ashley Young playing left wing back. Another one is Luke Shaw, if he'd lived up to the billing (was hailed as England's long term left back) he could have been a starter and ready made for that wing back role. Ross Barkley was meant to be the future of England's midfield and barely kicked a ball last season. I think Loftus Cheek should have featured more and prior to his injury did look set to start and that set him back. Even Kane was injured for months in the second half of last season and never quite got his level back for Tottenham. And though he had a good tournament Stones's season never recovered from an injury playing for England in a qualifier and he wasn't featuring much for City. It was ultimately too much of make do and mend team rather than a well primed team.
Aye like Columbia beat Japan comfortably...... Laughable how people are trying to make out "England did amazing" We beat Tunisia, Panama and Sweden
There was nothing remarkable about the group stage. We just about beat Tunisia and Panama were hopeless. We had no interest in scoring against Belgium because we didn't want to face Brazil in the quarters. In the knockouts we did well though. We should have beat Colombia in 90 minutes but winning a shootout was a big thing and a lot of prep work went into it. We comfortably beat Sweden who beat France in qualifying and knocked out Holland, Italy and effectively Germany. They aren't mugs. It was due to them knocking out big tea Croatia we were better than first half but then it went wrong and that's the body blow of the tournament. We couldn't see it through as France did against Belgium at 1-0. As I said before it was a make-do-and-mend team ultimately and it showed. We weren't a 90 minute team. We were really good in the first halves of Tunisia, Panama and Croatia but fell away after the break (Colombia as well to an extent). This was the failing of the Sven teams as well. As a first step under Southgate it was a very good one after the misery of the Hodgson tournaments and McClaren and then 2010 World Cup before that. People had had it with England. It's down to Southgate and a decent set of lads that the nation actually got invested in an England team again.
Well if nothing else the players will gain confidence from reaching a semi final regardless of who we played and certainly the back 4 looked like a solid unit for the future bar Young of course.
Yes, quite possibly! Well, not Panama. The others are all quite capable teams and England is a work in progress.
