Chris, I posted for the first time (apart from having a go at Ballotelli) at 10.26.



If Hart can somehow be seen as responsible as Montolivo's miss then surely Buffon should have some credit for actually saving a penalty?

I'm not frothing. I actually wanted England to come up against Germany. I was looking forward to three days of anticipation and "revenge for Bloemfontien" headlines.

Klose and Gomez would have filled their boots with the opportunities England seem to give up.

Terry and Lescott were aparently excellent tonight.

According to 606 Scholes should have been on the pitch tonight to do the Pirlo role for England.

What a knowledgeable football nation I live in.

Scholes could still do the job better than any fucker who was out there to-night.

Well, that was predictably dire from England. I'm almost relieved it's all over. Had England won on pens after that performance, it would have been such a travesty. Also, it's a relief to have avoided Germany: tonight was how I envisaged that game panning out, whereas I assumed beforehand that this would be a relatively close game.

Italy played well, though they weren't up against much tonight. Pirlo was brilliant, but you do wonder whether he could have been handled better.

The problem remains the midfield. Unless they can field four players comfortable in possession they will always struggle. Wilshere's one, but I'm not sure where the other three are coming from. English football just doesn't prize possession enough to develop these players.

Absolutely, but why bother making the effort when he knows there's no chance of progress?

Watching Pirlo's penalty over and over again (it's hard not to) and I wonder if his decision to go for a Panenka came from his obvious concern about the state of he penalty spot and the area around it.

Almost all the penalty takers looked worried about it (I think Beckham's foot giving way in 2004 was on the mind of a few of the English) and stamped the turf down but Pirlo was really unhappy. I don't think he trusted it wouldn't give way under his standing foot with anything but a chip.

That game would have passed by Scholes too, how could it not when England were so light on numbers. If you are poorer than your opponents in possession then you need to have similar or greater numbers in the central area to reduce the pass distances and give more options.

England play less. England play 442 with two ineffectual wingers who gave you nothing either way. Not a slight against Hodgson, not sure there was a better way to arrange that group of players but going forward.....

A curiosity for me is how Italy are such a narrow team with everything going through Pirlo, yet somehow they have brought along and played two complete sets of fullbacks and they have all been more than decent.

Abate and Maggio at right back, Balzaretti and Giaccharini at left back, all were fine and this was without their first choice left back Criscito too.

Abate might be my best right back of the tournament so far, the competition has not been fierce.

Tactical Genius wrote:


It's the gift that keeps on giving and we're like spoiled little children cyring about our gifts now. "What?! Only a bog standard penalty loss in the second round against Itlay? And the other keeper kept his gloves on? And no tabloid hate figure? Waaaahh."

There's a recession on. I guess we'll have to learn to make do.

I take it these 15 pages can be summarised as "England are shit?"

garcia wrote:


This.

Welbeck won about 90% of the headers he contested and was keeping hold of the ball, so he was doing the only thing that Carroll might do better than him and was more mobile, so what was the point of taking him off?

Also by wasting a substitution it meant that the ineffectual Young lasted the full 120 minutes when he could've been replaced by Oxlade-Chamberlain.

Considering Mr Roy had been so good with his substitutions in the previous games, this seemed to me to be a massive error on his part.

What is it this Oxlade has done in international games which makes everyone want him to play?

Was it because Young was down to be a penalty taker and Ox-C wasn't?

Tactical Genius wrote:


Quite. Scholes is the anti-Pirlo. Pirlo is a great midfielder because he can do all the things Scholes can't. Whereas Scholes has had a great career at the top level because he had to do the things that Pirlo doesn't need to do.

Also, Pirlo is there because he wanted to be there. Scholes decided eight years ago that he didn't want to be there. And England were still shit when he was in the team.

Yes, Oxlade-Chamberlain seems to be one of these players who improves in supporters eyes with every minute he doesn't step on the pitch. He was pretty rank against France.

Bravissimo to sixmarlettsandaseagull and any other Italian types who post on this messageboard, without question the better side has advanced to the semi finals.

ChrisJ wrote:


I do like that use of the term "just about".

Pietro Paolo Virdis wrote:


He hasn't proven himself to be as completely useless, spineless and ineffectual as Ashley Young?

Roy seems have taken a look at him against France and then decided he's not ready.

Alan Johnson's omission should be mentioned as an error. He can't have been worse than those who were picked.

Bryaniek wrote:

Precisely. He's got the ice cream he's been pestering for and then starts blarting because there are no sprinkles on it. Spoilt little bastard. I bet he was right little shit as a kid as well.