I'm not sure I was watching the same match last night...

MichaelDebeve

MichaelDebeve

Well-known member
...as the commentators and the pundits.

Italy were described as "up there with the best in Europe" .... "unlikely to play teams much better than Italy".... "Came through a real tough test tonight" etc

But in all honesty I thought Italy were poor, and a draw would have felt like a bad result (not in the context of the group!).

Although they created a couple of chances, I think they were Englands own doing, and I never felt that Italy would take charge of the game and could severely hurt England.

The biggest test was whether England could actually put them to the sword, and they eventually did.

It was a good professional display, but the general view on Italy left me scratching my head, I thought they were one dimensional and predictable most of the game, and lacked that steely defence that you would associate an Italian side with.
 
Italy are massively in transition they have lost decades of experience in chielini and other key squad members.

So they are young a little naive but they will get better but they are not there yet.
 
Jedi boro said:
Italy are massively in transition they have lost decades of experience in chielini and other key squad members.

So they are young a little naive but they will get better but they are not there yet.
Click to expand...

I dont doubt that at all, but I think the media made last nights victory into something bigger than it was.
 
Absolutely spot on, it was a good professional performance but it wasn't a vintage Italy.

Looking at next summers Euros I can only see France, Portugal and maybe Spain who are on our level now. A lot of the previous European powerhouses like Germany, Italy and Holland are nowhere near where they were in the past.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
But in all honesty I thought Italy were poor, and a draw would have felt like a bad result (not in the context of the group!).
Click to expand...
I think we largely made them 'poor' or 'poorer'. The have good players, but rarely got possession in dangerous areas, because we were setup to stop that, plus we were too much of a threat on the counter for them to really get their defence high. The threat of Foden and Rashfords pace was just to much for the FBs to join in. When they finally did commit forward, out of desperation at 1-1, Bellinghams run and Kanes touch did for them twice.

I think our possession in dangerous parts of the pitch, our off the ball movement, and our ball carrying tired them out also, their 'recovery legs' were not there in the second half. It all bodes well for us, because the Italains are usually a stubborn and organised side
 
I think beaten teams rarely look good, but good teams do get beaten. When Boro get beaten there's always a few accusations of "pub team" and "northern league at best" being thrown around, but we know that's just poor judgement.

I accept it's possible to look good when being beaten, but in 9/10 cases the beaten side looks bad.

So, saying after the match "x looked poor" is just a matter of hindsight, isn't it? You could convince yourself your team never beat anyone good if you just look at how well they play when your team beats them.

That said, though Italy may be reigning European champions, they're not a great side now. They've lost a lot of defensive experience, which was really the rock on which their championship was built. They also missed out on the last world cup, their second in a row.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I think beaten teams rarely look good, but good teams do get beaten. When Boro get beaten there's always a few accusations of "pub team" and "northern league at best" being thrown around, but we know that's just poor judgement.

I accept it's possible to look good when being beaten, but in 9/10 cases the beaten side looks bad.

So, saying after the match "x looked poor" is just a matter of hindsight, isn't it? You could convince yourself your team never beat anyone good if you just look at how well they play when your team beats them.

That said, though Italy may be reigning European champions, they're not a great side now. They've lost a lot of defensive experience, which was really the rock on which their championship was built. They also missed out on the last world cup, their second in a row.
Click to expand...
And Italy play the side that put them out next in north Macedonia.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I think beaten teams rarely look good, but good teams do get beaten. When Boro get beaten there's always a few accusations of "pub team" and "northern league at best" being thrown around, but we know that's just poor judgement.

I accept it's possible to look good when being beaten, but in 9/10 cases the beaten side looks bad.

So, saying after the match "x looked poor" is just a matter of hindsight, isn't it? You could convince yourself your team never beat anyone good if you just look at how well they play when your team beats them.

That said, though Italy may be reigning European champions, they're not a great side now. They've lost a lot of defensive experience, which was really the rock on which their championship was built. They also missed out on the last world cup, their second in a row.
Click to expand...

It is obviously hindsight, but my opening post is actually disagreement with the media more than an appraisal of Englands performance, or Italys.

The game itself is a matter of fact, the best team won, the poorer team lost, and there was obviously contributing factors of why England were better and Italy struggled.

But I guess my point is, Italy offered very little, yet were still made out to be a force of some kind, purely because of the badge.
 
It's a fact that the best teams don't always win trophies.

Portugal were nowhere near the best side in Europe when they won in 2016, but cup competitions throw up funny results.

I think we were a better team than Italy in 2021, we just didn't play to our potential.

We were better than France last year, but the little things went against us.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
...as the commentators and the pundits.

Italy were described as "up there with the best in Europe" .... "unlikely to play teams much better than Italy".... "Came through a real tough test tonight" etc

But in all honesty I thought Italy were poor, and a draw would have felt like a bad result (not in the context of the group!).

Although they created a couple of chances, I think they were Englands own doing, and I never felt that Italy would take charge of the game and could severely hurt England.

The biggest test was whether England could actually put them to the sword, and they eventually did.

It was a good professional display, but the general view on Italy left me scratching my head, I thought they were one dimensional and predictable most of the game, and lacked that steely defence that you would associate an Italian side with.
Click to expand...
I fully agree.

Italy are regarded as a good team, but a lot are basing this on previous history and what they've achieved in the past.

This Italian side is one of the worst Italian sides there has been in a long time. They're not a great team. And I would welcome them in the Euro's next year as I firmly believe we're head and shoulders better than them, in every department, except probably the GK position.

I find it hard to think any of their players would make our 11. There's only Donnarumma in for Pickford and Acerbi in for Maguire who would improve us. As for the rest, they're not fantastic.

Italy are a shadow of their former selves.
 
I don't know if they're as bad as everyone says. They're in the Semi Finals of the nation's league and recently beat Holland away from home, very narrowly lost to Spain away. They're not a classic Italy team but they'd probably give most teams in Europe other than us France and Portugal a run for their money.
 
If you make a team look poor because you are so much better than them. Then they are judged to be a poor team, how can you ever play a good team and win?
 
My first England game last night, and my first trip to Wembley. Absolutely loved it. Second half was so much better, I'd be happy to never see Phillips play for England again, and I'd much rather Southgate just played our best team instead of trying to out tactic the opposite team. Atmosphere was the only thing that disappointed, really flat.
 
Fabiopaim said:
My first England game last night, and my first trip to Wembley. Absolutely loved it. Second half was so much better, I'd be happy to never see Phillips play for England again, and I'd much rather Southgate just played our best team instead of trying to out tactic the opposite team. Atmosphere was the only thing that disappointed, really flat.
Click to expand...
Agree. I was there too and the atmosphere was flat. Much better at the Ukraine game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top