OT- Euro Quarterfinals - Italy vs England
Head to head: As historic as the two teams are in nature, England and Italy have surprisingly little history between them. They have played six times competitively, with the Italians winning four times to England’s once.
Yellow cards: Ashley Young, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, James Milner, Ashley Cole and Steven Gerrard are one caution away from suspension for England. Christian Maggio, Leonardo Bonucci, Thiago Motta, Riccardo Montolivo, Gianluigi Buffon, Fredrico Balzaretti, Daniele De Rossi, and, no surprise, Mario Balotelli face the same predicament for Italy.
A thigh injury to defensive anchor Giorgio Chiellini means Italy will be vulnerable defensively. The possible absence of Thiago Motta, who is doubtful after straining a hamstring, would disrupt Italy’s attacking flow. Bonucci and Riccardo Montolivo are expected to fill in.
Roy Hodgson and England will name a standard 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1 formation, and although there’s a chance that a more direct winger could start on the flanks, it’s probable that he’ll stick with the starting XI that overcame Ukraine in the final group game.
Cesare Prandelli’s formation for Italy is much less clear. Having used a 3-5-2 for Italy’s opening two games against Spain and Croatia, he switched to a 4-4-2 diamond for the win over Ireland.
Gli Azzurri , Forza Italia
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee512/zonal_marking/england-italy.jpg
Hasn't impacted anything enough to cause the usual whining from the fans.
He's done a lot for England this whole tournament.
who's been able to keep the ball. I'm guessing he leads the team in possession time.
in soccer/football? One WC and EC title in a wealthy country that is rabid about the sport. I just don't understand it.
My personal opinion is the lack of elite creative strikers. This and a mixture of playing an outdated style. The 4-4-2 is boring and outdated teams like Germany, Spain, Brazil, Uraguay have evolved more dynamic schemes.
Edit: However I do think the Great Britian Olympic team should be somewhat of a favorite, this English team plus a player like Gareth Bale would be very competitive. I think a guy like Bale is exactly what England is missing.
Because at every point in the player development process the English emphasize workrate and will and attitude over technical skill. If a Messi were born in England (and one probably has been) they'd find some way to turn him into a winger who never sees the ball. That, or someone would break his leg.
Remember, the important thing is not to fall down....
Since their club is always so disappointing at the international level one would think that a dramatic change would be in order.
to change the mind set of an entire Football Association, thousands of coaches, tens of thousands of players, tens of millions of fans. There are some early hints that a handful of people have noticed that there is a problem to be solved and that it's not simply been a question of bad luck; stories on the German development system have started turning up in the English press recently.
OT - everyone make sure to click on the Killer thread. RDT just had his cover blown.
Was always a tad sceptical about RDT.
Nice try by Rooney.
If the refs have helped anyone, its England.... with two weak ass yellow cards
You're right...
...the Italians must have bet against themselves and paid off the refs as such.
~Herm
than the players.
WOW Italy just offside as they were able to put one in the net.
Just?
If this England team can advance to semis it'll speak volumes about the lack of quality in this tournament, they suck and will be killed by Germany if they advance
If it goes to PKs who is the better goalie? I know enough about the Italian GK to know he is quite good but how about the Brit, is he any good?
I'm gonna be pissed when this is decided on penalties.....a crapshoot decision from what has been a very good game. Heck I think it's stupid that they went away from golden goal ten or so years ago.
I've only been into international football for a few years, but it seems to me the golden goal is way more fair way to decide it than penalties.
What was the reason behind dropping the Golden Goal?
They thought it was unfair to not allow the team trailing to react to the goal given up.
Personally, I think a lot of penalty shootouts could be avoided if they'd allow more substitution in extra time. Three subs may be sufficient for 90 minutes, but if you're going to play another 30 minutes on top of that, you've got to be able to bring on some additional fresh legs. Players are exhausted by that time.
It's the fatigue in extra time that's the reason there are so many goals scored. There's a much higher rate of goals scored late in each half and in extra time when players are knackered.
Is there a relatively high rate of goals scored in extra time? I didn't think so. What I've noticed in a lot of these extra sessions is that play tends to bog down and both teams reluctant to attack, which is probably at least partly a function of fatigue.
Regarding your point about goals often being scored at the end of halves, some of that may be a function of teams substituting (particularly in the second half). But usually they use up all their subs by the end of regulation time, so they don't get the bonus of fresh legs when they have to go another 30.
but some older games might be responsble for it.
I only remember one goal being scored during the golden-goal era--am I wrong about that? Sometime I'll go through the WC and CL records and work this out.
Anyone old enough to have seen these will never forget them:
A test of endurance and will'My most beautiful game'
Golden goals were scored a little more than that. Wikipedia has a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal#Major_international_tournament…
When players knew that any mistake meant an instant loss they had a tendency to play it safe, which meant fewer goals were scored in the extra time and more matches went to penalties.
That was the theory, anyway. I doubt there were enough statistics on it for anyone to know, but player and coach feedback went that direction.
A better reason, from my perspective, is that the most exciting moments ever played wouldn't have happened. Italy/Germany in 1970 and France/Germany in 1982 would have been decided on the first goal and we would have been spared seven more.
Two games aren't reason to be for or against golden goal IMO. Hockey playoffs are awesome with sudden death. I think soccer would be much the same. Just think back to South Korea at the 2002 World Cup.....amazing moment and would be even more fondly remember if it was a European team that did it.
I'm an Italian fan and we won today on a shootout and the 2006 World Cup...but it's so random, and that's why I hate it. Complete crapshoot.
The only good thing to come from a shootout is Woody Harrelson knocking in the game winner at a charity match in England a few years ago.
but it drives me nuts when people describe it as "random" or a "crapshoot". Penalties are a skill, both for taker and goalie, and preparation means a lot. If it's a coin flip, it's a weighted coin.
An Italian friend has an elegant solution for penalties--his idea is to take the penalties first, after the ninety minutes, then play the extra time. If extra time ends in a tie the team that won the penalties wins the match.
That would put an onus on one team or the other to score in the ET and increase the likelihood of risk-taking, and it would take away from the damaging psychological effect of being the player that missed the losing penalty.
I like it a lot. FIFA likes the penalty drama, though.
Oh, it is a skill. But at the same time, the penalty taker should be able to score it on 90% of the time just because everything is against the goalie (even a great goalie doesn't have a chance of saving it if the kicker makes does everything he should). It is a glorified guessing game. I think it takes more skill for a hockey player to score in a shootout, but if that's how NHL playoff games were decided I would be more than pissed. Penalties take away from the game as it comes solely to your ability to score. No defense, goaltending ability minimized, ball possession etc etc
Penalties first would be silly too IMO. If a team won the penalties, they'd just bog down in the extra time. No thanks. Go to 30 minute periods, give the managers an extra sub per 30 minutes or take a player or two off the pitch to make the play more wide open. One of the reaons why golden goal didn't originally work IMO, is that they still had the option of penalties after extra time (ie Ireland-Spain 2002 WC). If you just make it flat out golden goal with no chances of penalties, teams would play it more like a normal game.
where there's a possibility the game will go on forever, players will conserve their energy accordingly from the start. You can't ask players to go more than 120 minutes.
And I'm not sure I buy your point about one team going into a shell killing the game. Isn't there pretty general agreement on the "this game needs a goal" principle, that pushing one team into some desperation can break a stalemate and improves the pace of the game?
There was a much better solution in the old days when ties were replayed, but television killed that and there's no going back.
You see less chances made in extra time now because there's a chance you go to penalties. And if you allow more subs in extra time, new players are on the pitch and can play at a high pace. Or give longer time to rest in between periods. Go 9 on 9 as well.
In your solution, only one team is in desperation....the other team is shelled up. Sometimes they'll pay for it, but more often than not they won't (see England today). And in a sense, your match is still decided by penalties. Decide it on the whole pitch. Penalties victimize individuals instead of the team. It's nonsense.
Not sure 87 and Htown....I just know the 2002 WC was the last time it was used IIRC. I've only been following for a few years too.
This is a major soccer nation? (I know their record is poor in big tournaments, but still England qualifies as a major football nation with some world class players.) This looks like a USA v. Italy game, meaning a team playing Italy that is either clearly inferior in talent or thinks that they are inferior in talent. Just a terrible showing
Should be a fun penalty shootout. Looking forward to it
This team lost 3 major defensive players including their central back Gary Cahill (Chelsea). This team knew it didn't have the outward talent as some of the other teams, and took a "team defense" approach and it has got them to penalties.
Cahill is from Australia AFAIK
Edit: My bad, double checking I guess I was thinking of someone else, sorry
Tim Cahill is the Aussie.
Italy misses a good chance and Rooney puts England ahead
Effing Pirlo!
Misses... All even through 3 rounds.
Ashely Cole misses... One more for Italy and it's over.
England stinks at PK shootouts.
for Italy. But the more I get to know soccer the more I LIKE the fact that the better team doesn't always win. The stochastic element in soccer is huge.
It's not quite as big as you might think. Despite the fact that it's so low-scoring, the favored teams advance very frequently. I read somewhere that the 2010 World Cup was the first time ever that the final didn't involve one of Brazil, Germany, Argentina or Italy (but it did involve the Netherlands, for the third time, as well as the European champion, Spain).
Hockey is the sport that's really random.
all that--involve Spain and Germany, as many would have predicted. Having favorites prevail in long tourneys is different from individual results, though.
But--I'll admit--my sample is even smaller and more skewed than yours, being based partly in observations of my eight-year-old daughter's matches.
Italy showed their skill in that. Go Germany!