Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
The choice was in bringing on the more defensive minded Dier to try and kill the game by holding onto possession and slowing the pace right down. We've all seen Spain do this, where they'd go a goal up and then bore us all to death by playing out the remaining minutes with little nothing passes around the centre circle. Horrible to watch as a spectacle but very effective with players that're able to do it. (This was where Busquets used to come into his own.) The problem is England doesn't have players that comfortable in possession.
|
oh, right. colombia’s players were very comfortable in possession however
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
The choice instead of Dier would have been someone more attacking, like Loftus Cheek or Rashford.
|
but since you were ahead, there was no need... yeah i see
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
So yes it was a poor choice in retrospect but we're all experts after the fact. And England won, so we ultimately got away with it. But there can be few more torturous experiences for an England fan than watching them try to defend a narrow lead.
|
it didn’t look like a choice to me because just like you were watching from the english perspective i was looking from the colombian team.
so to me it looked more like colombian imposition by bacca, uribe and muriel, than british choice.
as usual michael cox clarifies everything and shows that it was a mix of both, and the 3-5-2. that fucking guy! he’s awesome.
i didn’t see rashford do much when he came in, but maybe that’s how things calmed down for you a bit?