Euro 2016
- Thread starter Gotham Gator
- Start date
Yup....!
The players must have misunderstood what the referendum was all about, because they were awful. Awful. Terrible.
and people think the USMNT and that USA soccer has a problem ?
Millionaires playing in the premier league and can't beat a bunch of semi-pros.
The USA doesn't look so bad now....
Millionaires playing in the premier league and can't beat a bunch of semi-pros.
The USA doesn't look so bad now....
All of Iceland's team are fully professional. England are terrible but Iceland have shown themselves to be pretty good, they beat The Netherlands twice and finished above them and Turkey in qualifying, and they're still unbeaten after playing England, Portugal and Austria in this tournament.
So now that we've seen Italy's success so far, what are our feelings about Conte choosing not to call Pirlo up? Would Pirlo have a place in this side?
Before the tournament there was speculation by Carlo Ancelotti going around that Conte would require a pressing game which Pirlo is no longer capable of, but Conte has certainly not required a particularly high press from his players so far (though, more on that in my final paragraph). Pirlo has been playing a higher press lately under Vieria than it seems he would have had to under Conte (hmm...).
I have to wonder if Conte simply takes Pirlo's choice to come to MLS as a declaration that Pirlo, himself, simply feels that he can't hack it anymore. So, the question remains: Italy are doing fine without Pirlo, but would they be better with him? The same? Weaker?
I suppose in Conte's system Pirlo would be taking either Parolo's or Giaccherini's spot in the 3-5-2. It did appear that at least in the second half of the match v Spain it was specifically Parolo and Giaccherini who providing what pressing their was, as roving destroyers, so maybe Ancelotti wasn't *totally* wrong...
Before the tournament there was speculation by Carlo Ancelotti going around that Conte would require a pressing game which Pirlo is no longer capable of, but Conte has certainly not required a particularly high press from his players so far (though, more on that in my final paragraph). Pirlo has been playing a higher press lately under Vieria than it seems he would have had to under Conte (hmm...).
I have to wonder if Conte simply takes Pirlo's choice to come to MLS as a declaration that Pirlo, himself, simply feels that he can't hack it anymore. So, the question remains: Italy are doing fine without Pirlo, but would they be better with him? The same? Weaker?
I suppose in Conte's system Pirlo would be taking either Parolo's or Giaccherini's spot in the 3-5-2. It did appear that at least in the second half of the match v Spain it was specifically Parolo and Giaccherini who providing what pressing their was, as roving destroyers, so maybe Ancelotti wasn't *totally* wrong...
Firstly. What a game by Italy. They are clicking and the defense is tops in the world.
As far as Pirlo. It's hard to say cause they are winning. De Rossi and Thiago have been splitting time. Giaccherini has been a big part of the counter attack. Parolo has been scrappy. Not great, but good. In a 3-5-2 with his Juve teammates and Conte system he could have easily played in this line up. The over the top balls have been coming from the back line...but there is a lot of direct straight away passes from the midfield. I would have played him instead of Parolo. That all being said, Italy does have 2 of their best mids out in Claudio and Marco so a lot would have been different.
PV must be salivating watching the way they play from the back. They could be heavily pressed and they are so cool and collected about it.
I will say that I've thought about what Gio would have done entering the game more than I did Pirlo. I think he could be a nice sub for Eder, but Insigne is better than him. So who knows.
I'm curious how the Chelsea fans are feeling going into next year.
During the match v Spain the thought occurred to me several times that Conte has Italy playing together almost like a club team. Obviously having imported the Juve defense is a big factor there, but it's still a remarkable amount of cohesion for a national side.
It was odd that going into the game, the pundits were all saying that you can't take Iceland lightly, they beat the Netherlands twice, etc. etc., and then after the game, it's one of the biggest upsets ever and one of the worst losses in England's history. It's not possible for both of those things to be true.
The fact is that Iceland is a solid team and has been so for a couple of years now. They were very close to qualifying for the last World Cup, and they did great in qualifying for the Euros. Sure, they are a team that a top squad should beat, but they are good enough to beat anyone who is taking them lightly or is otherwise off its game, and England was very much off its game.
100% Agreement. Iceland is lower ranked and it's fair to criticize England for losing to them, but not in the extreme terms that are being applied here. Focusing on Iceland's population does a disservice to the hard work it has done to build a strong national team despite that limitation.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...nd-reykjavik-european-championships/86491210/
"Yet there is talent, too. Veteran Eidur Gudjohnsen played for Chelsea and FC Barcelona and was not amused when former colleague Frank Lampard, an Englishman playing for New York City FC of Major League Soccer, sent him a text before the Round of 16.
Gudjohnsen couldn’t see why Lampard thought it funny that the two teams were playing each other. No one in England is laughing now."
"Yet there is talent, too. Veteran Eidur Gudjohnsen played for Chelsea and FC Barcelona and was not amused when former colleague Frank Lampard, an Englishman playing for New York City FC of Major League Soccer, sent him a text before the Round of 16.
Gudjohnsen couldn’t see why Lampard thought it funny that the two teams were playing each other. No one in England is laughing now."
Eidur just misunderstood that Lampard found it funny that England would even take the field to play since they'd been so predictable, boring, and average to get to the match.... And their play showed it.
Interesting, but hard to tell without seeing the actual text whether Lampard was serving routine banter and Gudjohnsenwas over-sensitive, or Lampard was over the line. Since they had a prior relationship and Gudjohnsen played at Chelsea I'm discounting simple cultural or language issues.
Similar threads
