Joined: Aug 17 2003 Posts: 17226 Location: South Wales
andym1988 wrote:Beglin just said then that there was 'nearly a goal for the Africans'.
When Lampard had a shot last night, did they say it was 'nearly a goal for the Europeans'?
While there have been a few patronising moments, I don't really think this is an issue. I've also heard Denmark described as 'the Scandanavians' and Uruguay as 'the South Americans' etc, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Describing England as 'the Europeans' would be a bit stupid considering everyone watching the broadcast is already going to know where England is, and also that the commentators make no attempts to remain unbiased during England games.
King Street Cat wrote:Some might look at this as being harsh but I think it's fair. When are the Rugby League going to stop persisting with this fantasy expansion. If it hasn't worked by now, it never will! I'm all for reaching out to a wider audience with our game but not at the expense of historical clubs in the homelands.
headhunter wrote:While there have been a few patronising moments, I don't really think this is an issue. I've also heard Denmark described as 'the Scandanavians' and Uruguay as 'the South Americans' etc, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Describing England as 'the Europeans' would be a bit stupid considering everyone watching the broadcast is already going to know where England is, and also that the commentators make no attempts to remain unbiased during England games.
I don't think just referring to them as being Africans is really the issue, it's the whole impression they are trying to give as if the "black" African teams are playing for Africa not their own individual countries (like I posted above, this theme isn't been mentioned when Algeria are playing). Denmark and Uruguay's goals aren't described as goals for Scandinavia or South America are they? Nor will it be described as a blow for Scandinavia/South America if they are knocked out.
The whole "Africa's World Cup" thing is nauseating too, it's South Africa's World Cup, I don't think there's any malice in any of the punditry, it's just a bit patronising and ignorant for me.
The Times column on the mythical "Africa United" theme I mentioned earlier is here, though you have to register to read it nowadays.
headhunter wrote:While there have been a few patronising moments, I don't really think this is an issue. I've also heard Denmark described as 'the Scandanavians' and Uruguay as 'the South Americans' etc, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Describing England as 'the Europeans' would be a bit stupid considering everyone watching the broadcast is already going to know where England is, and also that the commentators make no attempts to remain unbiased during England games.
I don't think just referring to them as being Africans is really the issue, it's the whole impression they are trying to give as if the "black" African teams are playing for Africa not their own individual countries (like I posted above, this theme isn't been mentioned when Algeria are playing). Denmark and Uruguay's goals aren't described as goals for Scandinavia or South America are they? Nor will it be described as a blow for Scandinavia/South America if they are knocked out.
The whole "Africa's World Cup" thing is nauseating too, it's South Africa's World Cup, I don't think there's any malice in any of the punditry, it's just a bit patronising and ignorant for me.
The Times column on the mythical "Africa United" theme I mentioned earlier is here, though you have to register to read it nowadays.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 5442 Location: Aberdeen
It is Africa's first world cup and it's not as if they didnt make an issue of the continent in previous world cups for one reason or another The opening ceremony made it clear that it was about Africa and not just South Africa and the local fans are getting behind the other african teams, it's not as if they are going to play each other so they might as well I didnt see todays game so it may have got worse, but ITV personnel do tend to spout a lot of rubbish anyway
“You are playing a game of football this afternoon but more than that you are playing for England, and more even than that, you are playing for right versus wrong. You will win because you have to win. Don’t forget that message from home. England expects every one of you to do his duty.”
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14324 Location: Looking for coffee and donuts
Asim wrote:But still in the context of a whole team.
Lampard's freedom to get forward from his defensive midfielder just takes him into the areas Gerrard thrives in with the free role, they'd be getting in each others way more than ever, without a Drogba type bullying defenders and making the space for him.
Gerrard excelled behind a striker like Torres, a totally different player to Rooney, and the team worked because they had Mascherano and Alonso to balance it - they didn't have that this season and Gerrard was disappointing for a lot of it.
A lot of Rooney's goals came from crosses provided by wingers like Valencia hugging the touchline, who does that for England?
The system has to fit the group as a whole, or you have to have players to fit the system, we don't seem to have either capability, and we don't have the technical ability to play too fluidly.
Agree with most of that, but if we are going to get anywhere in the tournament it will likely be because of Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard. As much as possible we need to get them to try to replicate what they do for their clubs and try to build as much as possible around that, of course recognising it won't be the same because the players around them aren't the same.
At the moment certainly Gerrard and Lampard play very different roles for England than they do for their clubs and are wasted - may as well have Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas still playing.
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Whatever system you play...players need to address some basics facts. The most important being.... if you don't shoot (or head) you don't score. It took England a third of the game to have an effort on goal....what the fook is that all about?
The more shots you have on target, the more chance you have of scoring.
With this ball, goalies are producing howlers.....so get over the ball and shoot...... a rebound is always on the cards.
Don't try to walk the ball into the net....goals like that are rare at the top level.
Don't think....fooking shoot!!!.....within reason (not from silly distances)!!!
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Joined: Mar 13 2002 Posts: 956 Location: From Hull and now trying to spread the RL word in Liverpool, and failing dismally.
Until the English game decides to put football ability first and being an athlete second we will never win anything. In this country we bang on about workrate and passion and commitment as though that is all that is needed and ability and tactical nous are an afterthought. For supposedly top players their technique is poor and there is just no excuse for how inflexible they are when it comes to playing in different systems and formations.
Stand-Offish wrote:Whatever system you play...players need to address some basics facts. The most important being.... if you don't shoot (or head) you don't score. It took England a third of the game to have an effort on goal....what the fook is that all about?
The more shots you have on target, the more chance you have of scoring.
With this ball, goalies are producing howlers.....so get over the ball and shoot...... a rebound is always on the cards.
Don't try to walk the ball into the net....goals like that are rare at the top level.
Don't think....fooking shoot!!!.....within reason (not from silly distances)!!!
I'm sure that all sounds very easy to you typing it on your keyboard now, but did you ever find yourself shouting at the screen for them to shoot last night? Probably not, because we created no opportunity to shoot. Barring Gerrard in the first half striding into the box and passing I can't think of any. Long range opportunities need to be earned as well as chances inside the box, defences don't just give them away, so it's not just a case of firing a load of 30 yarders in.
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
GCM1980 wrote:I'm sure that all sounds very easy to you typing it on your keyboard now, but did you ever find yourself shouting at the screen for them to shoot last night? Probably not, because we created no opportunity to shoot. Barring Gerrard in the first half striding into the box and passing I can't think of any. Long range opportunities need to be earned as well as chances inside the box, defences don't just give them away, so it's not just a case of firing a load of 30 yarders in.
Well that's were you are wrong. And your memory is not as good as you think. Twice very early in the game we were in shooting positions and chose to pass inside. And I was shouting ....shoot!
And don't you read things properly? I ended by saying not from silly positions. However......anywhere around the box is reasonable.
And besides I am not talking about last night's match...I am talking about Wednesday's. As in.....how we might give ourselves more chance to score against Slovenia.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Thank God I'm an atheist.
Last edited by Stand-Offish on Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
