Even though the ratings don't reflect it, both Kane and Sterling played very well today. Sterling should have scored, and that would have increased his rating, but his graft, movement and even hold-up play were excellent. I still don't like him in the striker role but he is at least starting to hit some form. As for Kane, we got what we usually see him do for Spurs. There aren't many #9s who, despite not scoring, can positively affect the team. Clearly something he learned at Arsenal's academy- they say ages 8 and 9 are the most important. ;-) . Maguire was again very good, Lingard hustled well in the middle of the park and Pickford pulled off some excellent saves. I'm glad we are playing Croatia next, it should allow for a more free-flowing game.
@MrNemobody Nonsense. Penalties need to be put away and he’s done it. Not only that, but he was fouled for the penalties as he would have had a free header otherwise and scored. The heel flick was actually sub conscious and the headers too very clinical. His defensive contribution, target man and hold up play have been very good and scored in the shootout. He plays for the team and works hard in all aspects. You are an envious, jealous, bitter child.
@Champion Hahahahahah! So I'm an envious, jealous, bitter child for thinking he is not performing very well in the World Cup? Chill out, man. I have nothing against Harry Kane. He is a very good player, but his goal status in this World Cup doesn't reflect his average contribution so far.
@MrNemobody If his team doesn't provide any scoring chances, there is not much he can do. He is no wizard with the ball who creates stuff on his own. But yes, the winner of the golden boot should get some real goals.
@neumi17 Kane is key for England as he’s a target man too in the air and he defends a lot from the front, good in general build up. All aspects of Kane’s game are strong and selfless
Not a good game for any of the teams, or to the neutral viewers. Larsson on the Swedish side picked as their central midfielder, not the best of choices it would seem to me. A.Young is given too much playtime on the English side and sadly there are few good options. Henderson isn't really looking sharp enough to hold the midfield together against better opposition. Doubt Lingard could either even though he occasionally shines bright as a lightning bolt. Alli is a good player too, but not really the playmaker type. Maguire in the back has been the English highlight in this tournament to me, together with Pickford.
@Fromhell Ashley Young is very good for England , you need to get over it. Henderson is doing very well in the role he has in a 3 man midfield. You are exposing yourself as another casual
@Champion I don't care if I'm casual or not. I just DON'T see Henderson and Cole lifting the world cup trophy, if anything that actually makes me laugh a bit. Hope I'm wrong and I'll congratulate the English players and supporters if they pull this off. Ashley Young though is not "very good" he is medioker at best and way past his glory days of epic tossings of his own body forth and back up and down the flanks looking for the refs attention, and Henderson is just too much white bread/vanilla for my taste. Boring. I miss the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes and Beckham.
I fell asleep in 36th minute. It was obvious that snoozefest was coming after the exciting game yesterday evening. I am having doubts about "watchability" of the evening game as well. Croatia may be playing the most sophisticated and tactically advanced football at the tournament. But it is not very pleasing to the eye. Hopefully Russia scores first and Croatia shows less tactics and more direct attacking football.
@Yman- But if we are to win it, we would have to beat Croatia (who many experts are saying have played the best football thus far) and either Belgium (who knocked out the pre-tournament favourites) or France (who are the current favourites). Whoever wins the WC will have deserved it and if we don't deserve it..... we will not win it.
@SteveHyland Plus England beat Sweden, who knocked out the Netherlands and Italy before the tournament, as well as Germany in the group stage - three European powerhouses.
@Yman What about Germany 2002, a team beaten 5-1 by England in qualifiers? Germany played Ireland, Cameroon and Saudi Arabia, then Paraguay, USA and South Korea before the final.
Not that different, but Croatia (if they make it) have more quality than 2002 S. Korea
Sweden had their chances but this wasn't their day and England were better anyway. Set pieces seem to be difference makers in this tournament as in all three quater final there's been a set piece goal. England's system seems to work well and they are able to get the best out of Trippier and Young who have very good crosses for wing backs. Sterling was lively again but his delivery and decision making are were as bad as usual. I think Wilfried Zaha, for examble, would do much better in that role as he played brilliantly supporting striker for Palace this season. But congratulations for this team and their supprorters, you're having a tournament to remember!
2 Yellow cards suspensions are a joke, Brazil lost because missing Casemiro and these lumberjackers Swedes beat Switzerland because they were missing two key players for the same motive.
@patapalo- Switzerland would have been an easier game due to style. Plus the last time we lost to the Swiss was 1981. Most recently, we won both games in the Euro 2016 qualifying group 2-0. Sweden's pragmatism was/is more dangerous to us than an open-team.
Lingard motm for me, what an engine and top cross on the goal. England made Sweden look very average today, England weren’t quite at their best either and have even more to give. Great England
Never seen an england team rely on long balls so much. Glad they won but wow so boring to watch. Had it not been for Pickford they wouldn't be through . I don't know how much respect rest of world will give this team if they win the world cup, haven't had to face a top 10 world ranking team this win tournament.
@SoccerSanchezUK ''haven't had to face a top 10 world ranking team'' Sweden was the leader of group F which Germany finished 4th. It's not England's fault, they were not good enough to qualify and face England.
@SoccerSanchezUK Scored twice and Pickford is a good keeper. Those are saves he will expect himself to make, he’s that good. Bit rich to say that, Sweden created two proper chances in the game. England created a lot more
England completely dominant and a little wasteful. Pickford, Maguire and Lingard the stand outs but all played well. Just a shame Sterling was wasteful eapecially. Still England very good and out classed Sweden. Lingard I think is highly underrated he runs in the 90th minute like it’s rhe first. What an engine .
I really liked Henderson's task in this match. Some superb saves by Pickford also. Well done England!, I wish Sterling stopped wasting clear goals chances though.-
@What4 Not really, they are the only two teams, who are even worse. And Sweden even list against us... England would have too. But who cares, it's about those two.
England hasn't realized yet, that football is also some sort of art. Their approach is close to rugby, kick it and run. No precision in passes, no individual skill in tide areas. Everything is pretty simple and basic football but at least they try to attack.
@nexus747 England scored only 2 goals ( headers against short Panamanian ) out of open play. Kane has 3 penalties and one ball deflected of him. Of all the forwards in the tournament he had the least amount of scoring chances.
If Alli is fit then Southgate should think carefully about who to play off Kane. For me, Lingard can do this role better than Sterling. Then Alli and Loftus-Cheek play in the midfield in front of Henderson. Cahill comes in for Walker. I think Lingard off Kane is something I've heard no one talk about, but it does make sense to me as an option. Alternatively Sterling starts, RLC comes in for Alli (if injured) and Cahill for Walker. I doubt Cahill will come in despite the obvious benefits of doing it, but we will see. If Walker starts I'm less confident. If Dier and Henderson start in midfield plus Walker in defence England will probably lose. Depends on the team selected by Southgate as to the outcome for me.
Honestly god knows. Sweden might be too hard for England to break down. England will need a bit of luck like france had against Uruguay. The goal will come from a set piece or penalty if it’s going to come. 1-1 draw I’m going. Sweden on pens? Sweden to qualify @ 7/4 seems reasonable
@wdetac Sir you are a dumb4ss.
Sweden have since last year;
1) knocked out the Netherlands from the qualifiers
2) knocked out Italy from the qualifiers
3) knocked out Germany from the group
4) knocked out the no. 6 FIFA ranked team in Switzerland
5) beaten the reigning European Champs Portugal by 3-2
Head to head in the last 23 games there have been 9 draws and 7 wins for each team. In the last 10 meetings the Swedes have won 3 times, the English have won 2 times and they have drawn 5. In their 8 meetings in qualifiers and tournaments England have won 1 time, Sweden have won twice and there have been 5 draws.
The last time the teams met the Swedes won by 4-2 .
After the match you will know how good the Swedish are. England are clearly not good enough, mark my words. Easy win for Sweden
@Flash_is_back Well, they haven't really knocked out Germany though. They were the only team Germany looked decent against and lost despite playing with 11 Vs 10 for 15 min.
@neumi17 Sweden went through, Germany did not, they where in the same group but Sweden topped Germany so ,yes they knocked them out. This is the world cup. One game means nothing.
Both teams are not very good in technical football or combination play. Sweden has a very good fefence and England won`t be creative enough to score a goal out of open play. So 1-0 Sweden
Oh and my estimation of John Stones went up 10-fold after his news conference calling out Colombia's dirty play. Sportsmen are usually diplomatic, barring Australians, and it makes a change somebody not saying "It is part of the game".
@SteveHyland He just stated the obvious. He didn't really have a chance, Colombia were the dirtiest team we've ever played in world cup history probably.
@Champion- The Argentina one in the QF of 1966 was pretty bad according to my parents. Spitting, off the ball fouls etc- plus the one red. Typical non-Brazilian South American tactics basically. Colombia are certainly the dirtiest team I have seen us play though.
Loftus-Cheek for Alli, who is injured again, will likely be the only change. Given the amount of disruptive play Colombia employed, it's impossible to tell which England players played well. With Vardy injured and Rashford disappointing against Belgium, Sterling will continue in the striker role. Sweden are tough to break down and a danger on the counter. I would have preferred Switzerland, even though they have better individuals, because Sweden's collective pragmatism is so similar to Iceland's- and Euro 2016 still brings us English out in cold sweats. Even though we haven't kept a clean sheet in the tournament, I am predicting 1-0 England because every logical prediction I've made has failed.
@SteveHyland If Alli is out RLC comes in. Walker is the only player who's place is at risk, he's been dodgy every game. England would be much better off picking Cahill. Sweden are a big team with 2 target men, Walker is weak in the air. Cahill will be able to handle them in open play, he would also be helpful for us against Sweden's set piece height (Sweden's attacking set pieces) and another set piece threat for us on our own attacking set pieces. If Cahill doesn't play over Walker it's a tactical mistake by Southgate. Walker's pace isn't needed against Sweden, nor is Walker's weakness in the air and proneness to losing concentration.
@Champion It's essential we don't pick Dier and Henderson, that would be too defensive and stagnate us like it did against Colombia and we will struggle. No need for it at all when we already play with 3 cb's , two wing backs and a holding mid. I hope we see 3-1-4-1-1 (call it 5-1-2-2/5-1-2-1-1 if you want). It would be ultra negative to play Dier and Henderson against Sweden's 4-4-2 set up.
does anyone really think that Sweden is the better team seriously? England is superior in every dimention. Yes England is overrated but they are still better. I am not fans of both team (I support Croatia) but I want to give England some credits.
@wdetac You are so clearly new to this sport. Last time England and Sweden played Sweden won by 4-2. You clearly haven't watched football for very long, so maybe you should learn some humility and watch some more football and learn how the sport actually works.
EPL fanboys never change. Pathetic.
@wdetac Sweden are the reason that both the Netherlands and Italy aren't at the World Cup. They finished top of a group containing Germany, only narrowly losing against them due to relentless pressure and a moment of Kroos magic, and Germany are the only team they have conceded against so far. They are defensively very solid and won't be clambering over opponents in the box to give away free penalties like many of England's previous opponents. Against Colombia England managed just one shot on target from open play in 120 minutes - that's atrocious. Only a fool would underestimate Sweden.
@wdetac They've performed better against overall better opponents than England, thus far. England have superior talent but they're not world class either, except for Kane.
@pyt55 They play better football too. Sweden are just a try hard team. Not a bad thing, they make the most of what they have but lack quality other than maybe Forsberg's dribbling and nous.
@pyt55 No, they are favourites only because they are called England. England play disgusting football. Sweden may park the bus, but at least they have a game plan and know what they are doing. England have no playing style whatsoever.
@splint3r England do have a playstyle. Play out from the back, ball possession and defensive solidarity, bossing set pieces. England created modern football, no need to be bitter about it.
@Champion England are a mess and disaster. There is reason why they are biggest loosers in the past decade or how long at International scene... Hopefully they will get knocked out today too
I expect only one possible change for England. Cahill or Dier may come in for Walker who has been dodgy and prone to lapses in concentration every game. If Alli is fit he will start again I'd imagine, either way England must play the 3-1-4-1-1 again from the start. Which means Loftus-Cheek in for Alli if Alli is out. Someone must play off Kane and let Kane lead the line. This rules out Vardy starting and means Sterling will probably start as he's best at that out of the three options with Kane. Sterling also is ok at holding it up as shown by his hold up play against Mina vs Colombia. He just needs to be a bit less loose with possession, however England's other attackers simply look better with him on. Lingard must start again, he's been the bright light out of the midfielders that can get forward. England mustn't revert to 2 defensive minded mids unless it's in a 5-4-1, otherwise the player in front is isolated as are the centre forwards and we will struggle badly.
@Champion Sweden will be compact and difficult, and they are excellent in the air..another reason for Cahill. Plus Cahill gives England yet another set piece threat. England have been very difficult to defend on set pieces (the best at them in the competition and opposition have been scared to death of Kane especially rugby tackling and holding him) and Cahill would be ideal to make that even better. It will help us defend in open play against long balls and set pieces against us. I do hope Walker gives way to Cahill and the rest remains unchanged, if so I expect England to win probably by one goal
England to qualify. Sweden has the weakest front line I've seen in the world cup last 16. since their defense is ok, I expect under 2.5 and England to win for 0-1 or 0-2
Even though the ratings don't reflect it, both Kane and Sterling played very well today. Sterling should have scored, and that would have increased his rating, but his graft, movement and even hold-up play were excellent. I still don't like him in the striker role but he is at least starting to hit some form. As for Kane, we got what we usually see him do for Spurs. There aren't many #9s who, despite not scoring, can positively affect the team. Clearly something he learned at Arsenal's academy- they say ages 8 and 9 are the most important. ;-) . Maguire was again very good, Lingard hustled well in the middle of the park and Pickford pulled off some excellent saves. I'm glad we are playing Croatia next, it should allow for a more free-flowing game.
I find new England today. They show us fast and effective style
Kane doesn't deserve the Golden Boot for what he's been playing so far. 3 penalty goals and 1 accidental one.
@MrNemobody Goals don't smell
@MrNemobody Nonsense. Penalties need to be put away and he’s done it. Not only that, but he was fouled for the penalties as he would have had a free header otherwise and scored. The heel flick was actually sub conscious and the headers too very clinical. His defensive contribution, target man and hold up play have been very good and scored in the shootout. He plays for the team and works hard in all aspects. You are an envious, jealous, bitter child.
@Champion Hahahahahah! So I'm an envious, jealous, bitter child for thinking he is not performing very well in the World Cup? Chill out, man. I have nothing against Harry Kane. He is a very good player, but his goal status in this World Cup doesn't reflect his average contribution so far.
@MrNemobody If his team doesn't provide any scoring chances, there is not much he can do. He is no wizard with the ball who creates stuff on his own. But yes, the winner of the golden boot should get some real goals.
@MrNemobody he fully deserve it his work off the ball and with ball just phenomenal
@aymane.spur True, but you don't get the award for good movement without the ball. Others did that good as well.
@neumi17 Kane is key for England as he’s a target man too in the air and he defends a lot from the front, good in general build up. All aspects of Kane’s game are strong and selfless
Not a good game for any of the teams, or to the neutral viewers. Larsson on the Swedish side picked as their central midfielder, not the best of choices it would seem to me. A.Young is given too much playtime on the English side and sadly there are few good options. Henderson isn't really looking sharp enough to hold the midfield together against better opposition. Doubt Lingard could either even though he occasionally shines bright as a lightning bolt. Alli is a good player too, but not really the playmaker type. Maguire in the back has been the English highlight in this tournament to me, together with Pickford.
@Fromhell Ashley Young is very good for England , you need to get over it. Henderson is doing very well in the role he has in a 3 man midfield. You are exposing yourself as another casual
@Champion I don't care if I'm casual or not. I just DON'T see Henderson and Cole lifting the world cup trophy, if anything that actually makes me laugh a bit. Hope I'm wrong and I'll congratulate the English players and supporters if they pull this off. Ashley Young though is not "very good" he is medioker at best and way past his glory days of epic tossings of his own body forth and back up and down the flanks looking for the refs attention, and Henderson is just too much white bread/vanilla for my taste. Boring. I miss the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Scholes and Beckham.
I fell asleep in 36th minute. It was obvious that snoozefest was coming after the exciting game yesterday evening. I am having doubts about "watchability" of the evening game as well. Croatia may be playing the most sophisticated and tactically advanced football at the tournament. But it is not very pleasing to the eye. Hopefully Russia scores first and Croatia shows less tactics and more direct attacking football.
England the luckiest team ever to reach the WC final: Tunisia - Panama - Belgium - Colombia - Sweden - Croatia !!!
@Yman- But if we are to win it, we would have to beat Croatia (who many experts are saying have played the best football thus far) and either Belgium (who knocked out the pre-tournament favourites) or France (who are the current favourites). Whoever wins the WC will have deserved it and if we don't deserve it..... we will not win it.
@SteveHyland Plus England beat Sweden, who knocked out the Netherlands and Italy before the tournament, as well as Germany in the group stage - three European powerhouses.
@Yman What about Germany 2002, a team beaten 5-1 by England in qualifiers? Germany played Ireland, Cameroon and Saudi Arabia, then Paraguay, USA and South Korea before the final. Not that different, but Croatia (if they make it) have more quality than 2002 S. Korea
@Allejo So they're the second luckiest ones lol
Sweden had their chances but this wasn't their day and England were better anyway. Set pieces seem to be difference makers in this tournament as in all three quater final there's been a set piece goal. England's system seems to work well and they are able to get the best out of Trippier and Young who have very good crosses for wing backs. Sterling was lively again but his delivery and decision making are were as bad as usual. I think Wilfried Zaha, for examble, would do much better in that role as he played brilliantly supporting striker for Palace this season. But congratulations for this team and their supprorters, you're having a tournament to remember!
2 Yellow cards suspensions are a joke, Brazil lost because missing Casemiro and these lumberjackers Swedes beat Switzerland because they were missing two key players for the same motive.
@patapalo- Switzerland would have been an easier game due to style. Plus the last time we lost to the Swiss was 1981. Most recently, we won both games in the Euro 2016 qualifying group 2-0. Sweden's pragmatism was/is more dangerous to us than an open-team.
A lot of people crying on here as the best team ENGLAND Won :)
@nexus747 They are crying because one of the teams had to advance and it was the less bad team who won.
Pickford did some great saves.It will be a France v England final.
@nexus747 Shure, as if England would make it to the final ... : ))))
Pickford..MOTM for me
@Salek he was very good too. Hard to compare keepers to outfielders, he was excellent so I can’t disagree
Lingard motm for me, what an engine and top cross on the goal. England made Sweden look very average today, England weren’t quite at their best either and have even more to give. Great England
Never seen an england team rely on long balls so much. Glad they won but wow so boring to watch. Had it not been for Pickford they wouldn't be through . I don't know how much respect rest of world will give this team if they win the world cup, haven't had to face a top 10 world ranking team this win tournament.
@SoccerSanchezUK ''haven't had to face a top 10 world ranking team'' Sweden was the leader of group F which Germany finished 4th. It's not England's fault, they were not good enough to qualify and face England.
@SoccerSanchezUK Scored twice and Pickford is a good keeper. Those are saves he will expect himself to make, he’s that good. Bit rich to say that, Sweden created two proper chances in the game. England created a lot more
England completely dominant and a little wasteful. Pickford, Maguire and Lingard the stand outs but all played well. Just a shame Sterling was wasteful eapecially. Still England very good and out classed Sweden. Lingard I think is highly underrated he runs in the 90th minute like it’s rhe first. What an engine .
Hopefully England out semi final. Boring football
@Lechiffre10 boring for casuals like you. It’s great tactical football for a purest
@Champion I thought you are the ultimate casual one ...
@Champion For a UKIPer, you mean?
@Adorno ? You seem very bitter, now making up more lies
@Champion A very casual Little Englander.
Both teams had their chances but we did well to be clinical and ultimately had the upper hand for much of the game. Semi-finals here we come!
I really liked Henderson's task in this match. Some superb saves by Pickford also. Well done England!, I wish Sterling stopped wasting clear goals chances though.-
@dib Yes but you have to appreciate how well Sterling did to get into positive positions during the match
Northern Europeans Bar barians are un skilled lumberjacks don keys.
what will it take to beat Jordan Pickford?
@alric8 A decent striker in a decent team
pickford with some impressive saves in the 2nd half hmm
England not allowed score gols, except on penalty or herdeira? Is that a rule defined for Fifa?
@CJK Yes, it's a rule defined by Fifa.
@CJK * header
Wow, a goal out of open play, can't believe it. A header after a high ball but still...
Sweden have been garbage so far.
@spectre08 ? They have played every game like that, what did you expect?
@neumi17 you said Sweden play better football than England pre game which was the biggest load of nonsense I’ve ever heard in here
@neumi17 Stating the facts..Along with Russia Sweden play the worst football.
@spectre08 Yeah, sounded like surprise at first.
I would say that was good goalkeeping, rather than a missed chance for Sterling.
What a terrible, terrible game ! Worse than I thought, looks like 3rd division in Scotland. I wish neither team would advance.
@neumi17 both better than Germany. You robbed Sweden in the group . You are so bitter England are doing well ha ha
@Champion Right, I am bitter...you are so pathetic it hurts.
@neumi17 Both of them are still better than Germany.
@What4 Not really, they are the only two teams, who are even worse. And Sweden even list against us... England would have too. But who cares, it's about those two.
@neumi17 you lost hahahahaha. Even your second , third and fourth sides are losing
@neumi17 I'm enjoying the salt :)
England hasn't realized yet, that football is also some sort of art. Their approach is close to rugby, kick it and run. No precision in passes, no individual skill in tide areas. Everything is pretty simple and basic football but at least they try to attack.
@neumi17 Perhaps if we played artful, skillful football we'd be through to a semi-final.
1-1. Btts is the best option here. I cant see that England crashing this Sweden team. Extra time, maybe penalty shootout
ENGLAND Pickford , Walker , Stones , Maguire , Lingard , Henderson , Kane , Sterling , Trippier , Young , Dele
@nexus747 Zero creativity... Long live corners, free kicks and penalties by Harry Kane ...
sincerely hope that English dog to go home.. however, Sweden is not able to stop them.. let Putin do it next round. 0:1 / 1:3
England win, 3412 is born to kill 442, on another hand, England can play 4 defenders to do the counter after they achieve the goal first.
<b>Sweden v England Sweden will win Russia v Croatia Russia will win</b>
Sweden 1 - 0 England I can't believe people are still underestimating the Swedish iron will and team morale.
England will be too strong for Sweden and i can see Kane scoring a couple of goals.England 3-1.
@nexus747 England scored only 2 goals ( headers against short Panamanian ) out of open play. Kane has 3 penalties and one ball deflected of him. Of all the forwards in the tournament he had the least amount of scoring chances.
@nexus747 Really? I cannot
If Alli is fit then Southgate should think carefully about who to play off Kane. For me, Lingard can do this role better than Sterling. Then Alli and Loftus-Cheek play in the midfield in front of Henderson. Cahill comes in for Walker. I think Lingard off Kane is something I've heard no one talk about, but it does make sense to me as an option. Alternatively Sterling starts, RLC comes in for Alli (if injured) and Cahill for Walker. I doubt Cahill will come in despite the obvious benefits of doing it, but we will see. If Walker starts I'm less confident. If Dier and Henderson start in midfield plus Walker in defence England will probably lose. Depends on the team selected by Southgate as to the outcome for me.
under 2.5 goals = free money
England will win and Kane to score
England win for me even if it goes to pens.
X in the first half
Honestly god knows. Sweden might be too hard for England to break down. England will need a bit of luck like france had against Uruguay. The goal will come from a set piece or penalty if it’s going to come. 1-1 draw I’m going. Sweden on pens? Sweden to qualify @ 7/4 seems reasonable
after the match you will know how good englnd is. sweden is clearly not good enough. mark my words. easy win for england
@wdetac Sir you are a dumb4ss. Sweden have since last year; 1) knocked out the Netherlands from the qualifiers 2) knocked out Italy from the qualifiers 3) knocked out Germany from the group 4) knocked out the no. 6 FIFA ranked team in Switzerland 5) beaten the reigning European Champs Portugal by 3-2 Head to head in the last 23 games there have been 9 draws and 7 wins for each team. In the last 10 meetings the Swedes have won 3 times, the English have won 2 times and they have drawn 5. In their 8 meetings in qualifiers and tournaments England have won 1 time, Sweden have won twice and there have been 5 draws. The last time the teams met the Swedes won by 4-2 . After the match you will know how good the Swedish are. England are clearly not good enough, mark my words. Easy win for Sweden
@Flash_is_back how are you? so easy for England. you are really idiot
@Flash_is_back Well, they haven't really knocked out Germany though. They were the only team Germany looked decent against and lost despite playing with 11 Vs 10 for 15 min.
@neumi17 Sweden went through, Germany did not, they where in the same group but Sweden topped Germany so ,yes they knocked them out. This is the world cup. One game means nothing.
0-0 or 1-1 then penalties => england wins
Sweden 0-1 England
Both teams are not very good in technical football or combination play. Sweden has a very good fefence and England won`t be creative enough to score a goal out of open play. So 1-0 Sweden
Sweden 3 - England 1
Oh and my estimation of John Stones went up 10-fold after his news conference calling out Colombia's dirty play. Sportsmen are usually diplomatic, barring Australians, and it makes a change somebody not saying "It is part of the game".
@SteveHyland He just stated the obvious. He didn't really have a chance, Colombia were the dirtiest team we've ever played in world cup history probably.
@Champion- The Argentina one in the QF of 1966 was pretty bad according to my parents. Spitting, off the ball fouls etc- plus the one red. Typical non-Brazilian South American tactics basically. Colombia are certainly the dirtiest team I have seen us play though.
Loftus-Cheek for Alli, who is injured again, will likely be the only change. Given the amount of disruptive play Colombia employed, it's impossible to tell which England players played well. With Vardy injured and Rashford disappointing against Belgium, Sterling will continue in the striker role. Sweden are tough to break down and a danger on the counter. I would have preferred Switzerland, even though they have better individuals, because Sweden's collective pragmatism is so similar to Iceland's- and Euro 2016 still brings us English out in cold sweats. Even though we haven't kept a clean sheet in the tournament, I am predicting 1-0 England because every logical prediction I've made has failed.
@SteveHyland Dier could play CB I suppose, double pivot with the 3 cb's would be poor though.
@SteveHyland If Alli is out RLC comes in. Walker is the only player who's place is at risk, he's been dodgy every game. England would be much better off picking Cahill. Sweden are a big team with 2 target men, Walker is weak in the air. Cahill will be able to handle them in open play, he would also be helpful for us against Sweden's set piece height (Sweden's attacking set pieces) and another set piece threat for us on our own attacking set pieces. If Cahill doesn't play over Walker it's a tactical mistake by Southgate. Walker's pace isn't needed against Sweden, nor is Walker's weakness in the air and proneness to losing concentration.
@Champion It's essential we don't pick Dier and Henderson, that would be too defensive and stagnate us like it did against Colombia and we will struggle. No need for it at all when we already play with 3 cb's , two wing backs and a holding mid. I hope we see 3-1-4-1-1 (call it 5-1-2-2/5-1-2-1-1 if you want). It would be ultra negative to play Dier and Henderson against Sweden's 4-4-2 set up.
I'm not even gonna comment.
@tristankleyn Ironic.
ENGLAND X-2
With all the focus on Kane, I fancy Sterling and Ali to sneak up on the blindside. 2-2 in 90 mins, England edge it 3-2 AET.
0-0. England wins again with penalties.
@jan30 Nobody wins on penalties twice. Especially England, haha.
Kind of an evergreen one, but whoever, if anyone, scores first don't see the other team getting back into it.
0-3 to Ingerland.
Sweden 2-1 England.
does anyone really think that Sweden is the better team seriously? England is superior in every dimention. Yes England is overrated but they are still better. I am not fans of both team (I support Croatia) but I want to give England some credits.
@wdetac You are so clearly new to this sport. Last time England and Sweden played Sweden won by 4-2. You clearly haven't watched football for very long, so maybe you should learn some humility and watch some more football and learn how the sport actually works. EPL fanboys never change. Pathetic.
@Flash_is_back That was 6 years ago, England have improved since then. I think anything over a year ago is irrelevant, it was also a friendly match.
@wdetac Sweden are the reason that both the Netherlands and Italy aren't at the World Cup. They finished top of a group containing Germany, only narrowly losing against them due to relentless pressure and a moment of Kroos magic, and Germany are the only team they have conceded against so far. They are defensively very solid and won't be clambering over opponents in the box to give away free penalties like many of England's previous opponents. Against Colombia England managed just one shot on target from open play in 120 minutes - that's atrocious. Only a fool would underestimate Sweden.
@wdetac They've performed better against overall better opponents than England, thus far. England have superior talent but they're not world class either, except for Kane.
@dSquib- And Welbeck, obviously. Cheeky sausage.
@SteveHyland Would you believe on account of his only playing ten minutes I totally forgot about him. . . Resting him for the final, no doubt!
@dSquib- It is always the most obvious ones we forget. Southgate is a genius hustler, Belgium 0-3 Welbeck in the final. Mark my words......
0-1 Sterling
England is a hard team, wont be easy for Sweden
The game will be not so easy.
I want Sweden to win here! England are awful.
@stefanm England play better football than Sweden, it's the reason they are favourites.
@Champion no, they are favorites because they have more valuable players...
@pyt55 They play better football too. Sweden are just a try hard team. Not a bad thing, they make the most of what they have but lack quality other than maybe Forsberg's dribbling and nous.
@pyt55 No, they are favourites only because they are called England. England play disgusting football. Sweden may park the bus, but at least they have a game plan and know what they are doing. England have no playing style whatsoever.
@splint3r England do have a playstyle. Play out from the back, ball possession and defensive solidarity, bossing set pieces. England created modern football, no need to be bitter about it.
@Champion England are a mess and disaster. There is reason why they are biggest loosers in the past decade or how long at International scene... Hopefully they will get knocked out today too
@pyt55 They are more valuable because they play better
@wdetac exactly
@wdetac yeah, but with their clubs
@pyt55 hahahahahahahahaha
I expect only one possible change for England. Cahill or Dier may come in for Walker who has been dodgy and prone to lapses in concentration every game. If Alli is fit he will start again I'd imagine, either way England must play the 3-1-4-1-1 again from the start. Which means Loftus-Cheek in for Alli if Alli is out. Someone must play off Kane and let Kane lead the line. This rules out Vardy starting and means Sterling will probably start as he's best at that out of the three options with Kane. Sterling also is ok at holding it up as shown by his hold up play against Mina vs Colombia. He just needs to be a bit less loose with possession, however England's other attackers simply look better with him on. Lingard must start again, he's been the bright light out of the midfielders that can get forward. England mustn't revert to 2 defensive minded mids unless it's in a 5-4-1, otherwise the player in front is isolated as are the centre forwards and we will struggle badly.
@Champion Sweden will be compact and difficult, and they are excellent in the air..another reason for Cahill. Plus Cahill gives England yet another set piece threat. England have been very difficult to defend on set pieces (the best at them in the competition and opposition have been scared to death of Kane especially rugby tackling and holding him) and Cahill would be ideal to make that even better. It will help us defend in open play against long balls and set pieces against us. I do hope Walker gives way to Cahill and the rest remains unchanged, if so I expect England to win probably by one goal
Sweden & unexpectedly there will be more than 2.5 Goals.
England to qualify. Sweden has the weakest front line I've seen in the world cup last 16. since their defense is ok, I expect under 2.5 and England to win for 0-1 or 0-2
first