England have kept nine clean sheets in their last 10 internationals.
Croatia have kept four clean sheets in their last five internationals.
England are unbeaten in their three meetings with the Croats (two wins, one draw).

以上是戰前情報
以下是戰後的各新聞網標題

Croatia sink sorry England
England Crash in Zagreb
England stumble to Croatia defeat
Croatia thumps feeble England;
England embarrassed

深夜中….我笑了…

很少看到主播及解說全都死氣沉沉一付快要說不下去的情形….
我想是因為…這幾個人都算是英超的簇擁吧….XDD
一般比賽只有主播和解說各一人,因為是足球母國England的比賽,轉播中還特別請到一位平常很樂天開朗又愛開玩笑的England歐吉桑當來賓參與講評. 沒想到從一開始在客場的England就踢得怪里怪氣的….Croatia一逮到機會就攻門….害得那個England歐吉桑沮喪到不行….連講評都懶的說…只能苦著一張臉說,他真的無話可說…真是太絕了.

Croatia的青春連線---No.19 的Nico Kranjcar很生猛活躍,而No.14的金髮小個頭Modric也很活蹦亂跳,在上半場結束前兩人的一次配合…讓England防守一陣虛驚,還好義大利裁判睜一隻眼閉一隻眼,要不然禁區前緣的犯規,說不定可讓Croatia在上半場就進能球了呢….還有他們背號5號的右後衛Corluka 也很有看頭,幾次漂亮的搶斷及快速向前推進的進攻都讓人印象深刻 ….

若論腳下功夫….整場下來總覺得Croatia的個人動作勝過England, 第一個進球的Eduardo雖是以頭球攻門,不過這位以Croatia半子身份入選國家隊的巴西人接二連三過人推進想必讓Liverpool的後衛很緊張吧! 還有Chelsea隊長一直忙於防守,至於MU後衛費大哥的表現似乎也讓講評們很緊張…哈哈!

沒想到先前主播跟講評還在誇獎England球門的不失分紀錄的話還言猶在耳,沒想到England在主場球員不斷的進攻下終失城池….不只如此,過了沒有幾分鐘….曼聯隊長一個很一般的回傳球,竟然讓當晚之前表現最佳的球門一腳踢空,球就在全場球迷的注視中,咚咚咚的滾入了球門….真是令人當場傻眼呀….我愣了一下….也不管半夜三更就…噗的就笑了起來….因為這真的是匪夷所思有夠好笑的進球了….

看到Croatia那位算是年輕的酷哥新教頭樂的跟什麼一樣….還一骨碌的像無尾熊般掛在助理教練們的身上哩….因為這真的是天賜的送分球….有了這一球勝局可說已定….沒想到….Croatia並沒有放鬆,因為到了最後連我們家的Simic都壓到中線附近來搶鏡頭….看到這又忍不住笑了….

其實在德國世界杯時就希望Croatia能至少打敗澳洲,日本晉級,沒想到他們在世界杯卻空有攻勢卻老是進不了球,最後遺憾的打道回府.現在在Euro2008的預選小組賽中,看來他們也相當有衝擊力…..幾個年輕的小伙子正逐漸的在累積他們的國際比賽經驗…感覺在E組中,越來越有發展成人人有希望個個沒把握的傾向了

至於England…..他們自家人的批評還會少嗎?自然是沒我們說話的餘地了…XDD

btw….恭喜Azzurri在Kaladze的國家贏球….是說比賽完之後,Kaladze是搭著義大利國家隊的專機回米蘭的….不知在專機上他們會有何種的對話呢?

Btw之二…..很高興風車王國贏球,這麼一來沒有范尼也還是能贏球,我們那個酷大少帥Basten就能繼續的酷下去

 



Croatia sink sorry England

The honeymoon period is well and truly over for England coach Steve McClaren as his side suffered a 2-0 defeat in Croatia.

 


England lose their shirts on rash tactical gamble

Questions will be asked about Steve McClaren's ability to coach at international level, and rightly so.
Richard Williams  October 12, 2006

England took the field last night with three strapping centre-backs, but not one of them was in a position to challenge Eduardo da Silva when Niko Kovac's long left-wing cross arrived at the far post. That was the measure of England's tactical failure. For an hour Steve McClaren's rearranged defence had been giving regular intimations of a catastrophe to come, and Croatia's opening goal came as a surprise to no one.

McClaren took a big risk in Zagreb, seemingly under the influence of Terry Venables, and his gamble fell apart when Eduardo's meticulous header looped over the head of Paul Robinson and under the crossbar. When Robinson missed Gary Neville's backpass eight minutes later, allowing the ball to bobble over the line, the head coach knew that his reputation and his pride lay in ruins.

Sven-Goran Eriksson was almost 4½ years into his reign before his side lost a qualifying match. It has taken McClaren four matches to suffer that indignity, and so conclusive was last night's defeat to Slaven Bilic's excellent side that questions will now be asked about the danger of England failing to qualify for a major tournament for the first time since Holland denied Graham Taylor's side a place in the 1994 World Cup. The implications of that possibility for the FA's finances are too gruesome to contemplate.

To the ignorant, this seemed an undemanding group. Instead it now resembles a nest of vipers. Croatia, laced with bright young players, may be growing strong enough to emulate the achievements of their illustrious predecessors. Russia, under Guus Hiddink, beat Estonia last night to get their campaign rolling. Israel are no mugs and neither, as we saw on Saturday, are Macedonia. England, deficient in technique and devoid of creativity, can take nothing for granted. All their opponents will take encouragement from last night's result, and even more from the nature of England's performance.

Had McClaren been solely intent on letting everyone know that he is not Eriksson, he could have done nothing more obvious than to start a match with a 3-5-2 formation. Were the Swede to have considered departing from his favoured 4-4-2, he would certainly not have done so at the outset of a match in which his reputation, if not his future, was at stake, along with qualifying points for a major tournament.

Last night's result condemns the new man to a period of five months before the next qualifying match - against Israel in Tel Aviv in March - in which he will be strapped to the dissecting table, his ability to do the job becoming a subject of permanent national debate.

Head coaches are lucky to get a second chance in international football, and there will be no shortage of voices suggesting that his first defeat, in the five matches since he replaced Eriksson, should be the excuse to say thank you and goodnight to a man whose achievements at domestic level never looked convincing enough to justify his international promotion.

On the one hand McClaren's desire to be his own man, and to demonstrate a certain flexibility, is worthy of admiration, although the expression of a desire to emulate his predecessor would hardly be guaranteed to win him friends. A proactive attitude, or at least the appearance of one, earned applause from those who grew tired of Eriksson's approach, which some saw as patience and others - eventually the vast majority - as passivity.

McClaren and Venables gave their 3-5-2 a try-out against Andorra last month. An hour into the match, with England 4-0 up, they sent on Kieran Richardson and Aaron Lennon and switched formations, with the two substitutes as the wide men. On that occasion it was the apparently irreplaceable Owen Hargreaves who became one of the centre-backs, alongside John Terry and Wes Brown. It worked reasonably well for half an hour - but it was against the part-timers of Andorra, and the match was already as good as over.

Of course, 3-5-2 was the formation with which Brazil won the World Cup in 2002, with three tall centre-backs and two flying wing-backs. But they were Brazil, and their coach was Luiz Felipe Scolari. Their skills enabled them to assume a flexibility that is foreign to England's limited defenders, all of whom habitually play for their clubs in a four-man rearguard.

So let's see. Who plays a back four these days? Italy, France, Germany and Argentina, for a start - the four best sides in last summer's World Cup. And then we have Barcelona, and Milan, and Bayern Munich, and practically every other European club side of any consequence, including the Premiership's own Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. Their managers are not fools. Why on earth did anyone imagine that England could go into a fixture of such importance depending on a format with which so few of the players had any significant experience?

The absence of Joe Cole, Lennon, Michael Owen and Steven Gerrard was particularly evident last night in the total lack of invention. But within the space of five days, McClaren has been out-thought by two bright young managers from eastern Europe. As a result, the gulf between English football's financial wealth and its technical and competitive poverty has been exposed to an unforgiving gaze.


Do I not like that
England's miserable performance in Zagreb evoked the darkest days of Graham Taylor's reign.
Rob Smyth   October 11, 2006 

Now we know for sure that Steve McClaren is not Sven Mk II: England would never, ever have lost this badly under the managership of Sven-Goran Eriksson. This was a shambles; a proper doing; a miserable, cowering performance that evoked the darkest days of Graham Taylor - chiefly the dismal 2-0 defeat in Norway in 1993.

Then, as now, England switched suddenly to 5-3-2 before the game. Then, as now, they struggled to put two passes together. Then, as now, the match moved insidiously from tricky test into outright humiliation against a side which, while competent, belonged emphatically in the second tier of European football.

And then, as now, England found themselves suddenly embroiled in a nasty qualification scrap from a group that was supposed to be relatively easy. They should still squeeze through, but that's not the point. It was not supposed to be like this: after all, Eriksson brought a guaranteed ticket to the quarter-finals, however underwhelming the journey might have been. The idea was that a proper manager - someone like Martin O'Neill, say - would take England to the next level.

Under Eriksson, England were the Ron Howard movie of world football: predictable, unoriginal and dull - but at least they invariably got three stars out of five. This, by contrast, was a showing that Ed Wood might have winced at: Rio Ferdinand, usually so calm, was lucky not to be sent off; John Terry made elementary mistakes; Michael Carrick, the great charlatan of English football, did not step out of first gear once; Peter Crouch trod on eggshells; Ashley Cole lost his rag completely and will now miss the tricky trip to Israel next year. If you make your own luck, England deserved the farcical bounce which led to Croatia's second goal.

When McClaren took over as England coach after five years of Scandinavian serenity, he promised to build a team with quintessentially English qualities: pace, dynamism, aggression. Yet instead of keeping it real, McClaren's team put the 'real' in 'funereal' going forward. At a time when pace is more important than ever in all sport, as was evidenced so thrillingly by Theo Walcott in Germany last night, their passing and movement were appallingly pedestrian.

They were not helped by the absence of Steven Gerrard, Michael Owen and Aaron Lennon, but McClaren was, fittingly, still extremely slow to respond to a situation that, after a decent first half-hour, was so obviously spiralling out of control. He made no changes at 1-0, and instead waited for the second goal to go in before employing the desperado's trick of the triple substitution. He also switched to 4-4-2, a tacit admission that the 5-3-2 formation was designed purely to earn a 0-0 draw, a concept as alien to most Englishmen as subtitled films and teetotalism.

The formation will inevitably dominate the criticism of McClaren, but the fundamental point remains: England are not actually that good. It was obvious that, deep down, Eriksson did not trust his players to outplay good teams, which was why he tried to win tournaments through the back door. For that lack of faith he was criticised furiously. But maybe he was right after all.


arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    milanhime 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()