neither team deserves to win.
a dud. call it a draw.
shareLets face it,England attacked more. When Chiesa got out Italy didnt attack anymore. But when you go to the penalities,any result can happen! So congrats to Italy! Donnaruma top 3 goalkeepers in the world
shareLol noway Donnarumma is top 3.
shareIn which position would you rank him?
shareI don´t know but he´s still too young to be anywhere near top 3. He´s not even the best Italian keeper. Buffon is still better than him at 43.
shareYou obviously don't know what you're talking about. We're in 2021, not 2014.
shareDoesn´t matter. Buffon is still in the top 5 keepers in the world. Donnarumma doesn´t come close.
shareBuffon is not in the top 5 keepers right now, he is old and his time has passed. Proof of that: he is going to play in the second division.
He said it himself, he didn't accept any possible offer from a first rate team because he knows he would be a substitute, as he no longer has the quality to be a starter.
Furthermore, Donnarumma just had a millionaire transfer to a top 10 club in Europe that is trying to win the champions league. He absolutely is one of the best goalkeepers at the moment. If you don't think he is, you just don't know enough.
True. I think Donnaruma is totally top 3,he did a perfect Euro
shareEngland attacked more? What do you mean by attacked more?
Possession: Italy 62%, England 38%
Goal attempts: Italy 20, England 6
Shots: Italy 15, England 5
Shots on goal: Italy 6, England 1
England scored one lucky goal then parked the bus.
The only surprise is how England was able to hold the draw until the end.
Speaking of people who don´t know what they are talking about. England did not "park the bus". The entire first half was all England.
shareJust because you say it doesn't make it a fact.
England scored one lucky goal and proceeded to defend. We even saw H. Kane constantly behind the ball, the 11 English players were very close to their area.
It's true, however, that this seemed to work in the first half. Italy was not being able to attack with danger. But just because England parked the bus with success in the first half, it doesn't mean "the first half was England".
"Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact."
That is not an argument, I could literally say the exact thing about you. lol
I am not going to bother with someone who calls England´s goal lucky but fails to mention Italy´s even luckier goal. I also think you need to learn what "parking the bus" means. Eng had all the chances and all the possession in the first half. You clearly have some bias against England.
What you say is not correct, but I understand as you were probably nervous while watching the game.
I watched it neutrally, and was capable of seeing that England dominated the first 10 minutes, then clearly parked the bus and created a stallmate with no real chances on both sides (except Chiesa's shot, which I think was in the first half).
After half-time the game was all Italy's, Mancini changed well and Southgate had no response.
I am not English so no, I was not nervous.
shareEngland scored one lucky goal
I don't think you know what lucky means.
Our goal was our only shot on target i'll admit because it was the one time we actually attacked properly. A quick counter and crossfield pass by kane, Trippier picked out Shaw who scores, nothing really lucky in it.
You wanna talk lucky what about Italy. I guess you think a header hitting the post and rebounding behind the keeper to the only Italian sat in the box for a tap in a well worked and crafted goal.
We get it you hate England. share
Yeah lol at thinking England´s goal was lucky but Italy´s wasn´t. Italy´s goal was the epitome of luck.
shareIt was lucky because, as we saw in the rest of the game, England did not have the capacity to recreate any other dangerous moment.
The play started with a lost ball by Maguire, and the shot itself seemed a bit random by Shaw. Didn't it also hit the post AND the goalkeeper before going in?
Italy was a "lucky goal", but you have to be honest with yourself: the "lucky thing" was that Italy only scored one goal, they had enough chances in the game to score 2 or 3 more. Plus, I'm pretty sure that if they wouldn't score that goal, it would have been a penalty.
It was lucky because, as we saw in the rest of the game, England did not have the capacity to recreate any other dangerous moment.
None of that statement means the goal was lucky.
The play started with a lost ball by Maguire
Whats your point, we still had the ball.
and the shot itself seemed a bit random by Shaw
Strange opinion but again just your opinion.
Didn't it also hit the post AND the goalkeeper before going in?
No it hit the post, keeper didn't move. Italys goal hit the post, go behind the keeper and then tapped in. Englands was lucky but that wasn't. Hmm, me thinks you have an agenda.
they had enough chances in the game to score 2 or 3
But they didn't. 95% of their chances will speculative long shots from outside the box that either went straight at Pickford or high and wide. Pickford only made 2 saves all game.
it would have been a penalty.
Based on what? Their was no foul or handball. Wow
Nothing you have said shows Englands goal was lucky. It wasn't but again nothing you said proves that. share
You just say "no" to any statement regardless of the truth.
You have no arguments, that's why. Italy was clearly superior, it deserves the trophy.
England needs to try harder next time, Sterling should practice his dives.
You just say "no" to any statement regardless of the truth
No I don't. YOu said Englands goal was lucky. It wasn't. How is that not the truth.
You have no arguments
Given plenty. You just don't want to read them
Italy was clearly superior
I never said they were not, that was never the question.
England needs to try harder next time
Yes they do. Again that was never the question
Sterling should practice his dives
He didn't dive but again never your original question.
The question was about you stating how lucky the goal was which I showed wasn't lucky but for some reason you have know turned that into what you just stated above which is the literal definition of moving the goal posts.
We get it, it is not hard to understand. You don't like England for whatever reason. Good for you.
But to answer your original question again before you again move the goalposts to something else because you have follow up retort. Tee goal wasn't lucky. share
I already replied to you before that I did not imply necessarily that the goal itself was lucky - it was a nice cross by Trip - but the way England was able to create the play in the first place.
As was seen in the entire match, England was never able to create any decent opportunity again. The goal play also started with a lost ball by Maguire (I think). The shot itself went to the post. These events can be considered lucky or simply fortunate, hard to repeat and to come by.
These are facts.
I did not imply necessarily that the goal itself was lucky
Your quote = England scored one lucky goal
but the way England was able to create the play in the first place
What a brilliant crossfield ball, cross and volley was lucky but nothing on Italy. You have a bias against England that you can't hide.
As was seen in the entire match, England was never able to create any decent opportunity again
Except the 3 headers that went over the bar, the stones header that went inches wide in extra time, the Sterling chance when he broke through the box. Italy had 20 shots on goal with 3 actual chances not including the goal. Everything else was high and wide or straight at Pickford. Again your bias towards England is staggering.
The shot itself went to the post
No it didn't. It clipped the inside 1 inch of the post. It was a great volley, great technique but yes lucky in your eyes. The Italy goal was pinball in the box which hit the post and rebounded behind the keeper but Englands was lucky. You are deluded.
These are facts.
No. These are your opinion. You have stated no facts but a lot of poor biased opinions.
share
So if England created those many chances (in your opinion) and Italy created no chances and only a lucky goal (in your opinion), how can people be saying now that it was a deserved win for Italy? Strange.
England's goal was an oasis in the desert, England scored one goal and parked the bus, defending for the rest of the game. Am I wrong? I don't think so, as people are accusing Southgate of being ultra-defensive. So what's the conclusion? Your arguments are not coherent.
Italy created no chances
I never said that. Once again you spin what was said to suit your narrative.
it was a deserved win for Italy
Because they played better but again that wasn't your original question.
England scored one goal and parked the bus
No they didn't. For the first 35 mins Italy couldn't get out of their half. Not exactly parking the Bus. In extra time we were the stronger team and Stones should have scored. Again not exactly parking the bus. I'm not sure you understand what that means.
Your arguments are not coherent
Because you keep changing yours and don't read my replies.
This started out as you saying that Englands goal was lucky which it wasn't. You didn't refute or argue against that post. What you have done is continually move the proverbial goalposts due to your bias against them.
I even said Italy were the better team, go read it. But Englands goal wasn't lucky, it is now coming out that Italys goal could also have been handball. What I said that you haven't bothered to read because you don't want to is that for all their possession they only created 2-3 really good chances just like England did. Only difference was we didn't take advantage and they equalised. Football is made up of small moments which you can't comprehend.
You literally have confirmation bias so no matter what is said you will reply with a different argument.
If you think being forced back is parking the bus then you need to learn the definition. When we changed formation part way through the 2nd half we started pushing them back, that is how it goes sometimes. But it was not parking the bus.
I'm done with this because you will come back with a new bias argument. Enjoy share
I wasn't spinning anything, it was a hyperbole. You said what, that Italy had 2 chances? You said "all Italy's shots went high and wide and Pickford only made 2 saves", or something along those lines. This is implying that you think Italy didn't have worthy chances, maybe only those 2 saves. Saying Italy had a couple of chances is almost like saying they had no chances, it's a figure of speech. You don't need to take it to heart or be sad about it.
In my opinion and in many other pundits' opinion, England parked the bus. In my opinion, parking the bus is playing excessively on defense, sometimes with 11 players behind the ball. England indeed did do that in many moments right after 1-0. We saw 11 players behind the ball several times. Is this not true?
Ranieri: "ENGLAND HAD TWO BUSES PARKED"
NBC: "Some of Southgate's calls were too defensive and too cautious".
Definition of "park the bus": To attempt to stop the opposition team from scoring a goal by playing extremely defensively and placing as many players as possible behind the ball.
In my opinion, this happened. The bus was parked.
Regarding the lucky goal, once again, and again in my opinion, let me rephrase it: the goal itself wasn't entirely lucky, but the fact that England was able to create and score the goal was a fortunate event for them.
hahaha! , did you even watch the game? lol
share