Alistair20000
Very well known Exeweb poster
String strikers ? ? ?I tell 'ee something. Sweden have got a couple of big, string strikers who can move and shoot. Wouldn't rule them out.
Are they called Bowwoman ? :$
String strikers ? ? ?I tell 'ee something. Sweden have got a couple of big, string strikers who can move and shoot. Wouldn't rule them out.
The sort you'd like to pull?String strikers ? ? ?
Yes. Surely you have heard of the string theory.String strikers ? ? ?
Are they called Bowwoman ? :$
Ooh err missusThe sort you'd like to pull?
I agree that the US team seems more streetwise. They were indeed quick to tackle v France and not averse to trying to waste a bit of time at the end, when they were under the cosh.I don't know enough to give an informed opinion but all I've seen of England is a very fit team who create chances for fun. I appreciate the USA are a different class to what Eng have faced so far but I can't see Eng not scoring a goal or two.
It's more a question of how good/bad our defence is. Again, we haven't been tested yet really. We've veered from looking classy and comfortable at the back to completely open and all over the shop. In the USA-France game I was struck by how aggressive USA were in the tackle. They definitely seem 'smarter' than other teams too and don't seem as open/naive as other teams.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was 2-2 after 90 minutes.
One thing I've noticed in this WWC is how teams who lose possession just immediately retreat 30 yards and allow the opposition space and time to come forward. This has been a great help to teams like England who have the forward-thinking players to take advantage. But the USA didn't seem to do this against France. They just flew straight back into them.I agree that the US team seems more streetwise. They were indeed quick to tackle v France and not averse to trying to waste a bit of time at the end, when they were under the cosh.