England vs DR Congo

[roberto w6]

Very poor performance especially in defence. Spence had a nightmare and didn't look up to it. But I thought the 2 centre backs were really poor too and it's from there that I'd typically expect to see commanding performances/leadership

I was wondering if putting Stones and Declan Rice in the middle of defence would work out of desperation but then I learned that Rice has experience at RB and he looked England's best defender of the tournament for the time he was there.

What an unnecessary and embarrassing position to be in. All those experienced defenders Tuchel left at home. True, none of them are Beckenbauer or Baresi but they look like world-beaters next to the ones he's brought.

We're lucky to be here and have very little chance of beating Mexico with a defence like this one. We'd be humiliated against anyone good despite this laughable talk by players and manager that we'd play better against strong opposition

[JimmyConway]

It was always a concern going into this world cup that we have decent defenders but not outstanding defenders. On England performances over the last couple of years I would say both Guhei & Konsa have been the most consistent. If you look beyond them Stones? Burns? Maguire? all again decent centre backs who are not getting any younger. Then you look at full backs not one outstanding full back all just decent to good if not injured type. That decision to bring Chalobah in for Livremento is still ridiculous. Declan Rice is such a good footballer but you can see his knackered after last season and he is our best all round midfielder. With that I would look to perhaps go three at the back with Rice central as ball playing centre back come sweeper role Konsa and Guehi either side. O'Riley left wing back and Saka right wing back. Andersen & Mainoo both central Rogers & Bellingham sitting behind Kane in a 3-4-2-1.

[Jim©]

Let's just put this all into a bit of context.
DR Congo aren't anywhere near as poor as some are making out. They held Portugal, rarely concede more than one goal and have beaten some good sides recently. If it wasn't for their keeper making a couple of outstanding saves (and Pickford not fluffing his lines) we'd have sailed through!

[hovewhite]

Mexico could be England's Waterloo game I think.

[jayffc]

Huge game in Mexico, our defence really is shakey at the moment. The idea to not take more fullbacks - and the right fullbacks is a real concern now.

But...we found a way. Hoping as can be the case sometimes with england we step up a bit more against better teams. Cos at the moment there's alot to be desired. Players will be well up for Mexico you would think, will be an exciting game and a tough one at that. Keeping everything crossed

[ron]

Once again it was proven;
 
 "It's Harry Kane , or it's on the 'plane..."

[alfie]

We will win, or at least we can win, there is always a chance, Mexico may have a bad game, who knows?

[Jims Dentist]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

[Twig]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

Could not agree more.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

Yes you make a lot of sense.

[bencher]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

100%. Unfortunately a whole generation of wingers has been raised to play inverted, so they look a bit lost when played on their natural side.

[Jim©]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

I can understand inverted wingers when you have attacking full backs who will overlap once the winger goes inside. We all saw how well it worked here with Robinson. But England don't really have overlapping full backs. So unless there's some intricate bit of coaching that I'm missing, like you I'm not a big fan of them in this set up.

[bencher]

Like Fulham under MS, England seem so obsessed with playing inverted wingers.
So, so often when getting a bit of space the inverted wingers cannot get to the line and get a cross in.
Instead they have to check back onto their good foot and put an angled cross into the box.
Not only is the momentum of the attack lost, but these crossed are so much harder for forwards (Kane/ Bellingham ) to get on the end of.
It would make so much sense to swap the two wingers over for periods in the games instead of sticking to such ridged tactics.

I can understand inverted wingers when you have attacking full backs who will overlap once the winger goes inside. We all saw how well it worked here with Robinson. But England don't really have overlapping full backs. So unless there's some intricate bit of coaching that I'm missing, like you I'm not a big fan of them in this set up.

This is a good point. England's full backs have provided basically no attacking output which makes us quite one-dimensional. I struggle to see why O'Reilly would be a starting full back if his instructions are to hold his position.