Positives: Johnson played well, Lennon played well, Heskey had an excellent game and should have scored, he and Rooney played well together actually, Rooney was man marked for most of the game, Lampard had an impressive second half, defence was a bit shaky in the first half but improved in the second, we had several chances on goal and were unlucky not to win.

Plus the USA are NOT an easy team by any means and like I've said some of these players are still learning how to play together effectively.

Good point actually I forgot about Barry being fit which will mean the formation changing anyway Gerrard sitting just behind Rooney would be a much better option imo :)

oh yeah, and what was the point in that guy getting switched at the end? he must have been on the pitch for 2 or 3 seconds before the whistle blew LOL

They were wasting time so they were guaranteed a point.

He didn't even get on the pitch :joker: that was pure time wasting lol

The dirty American ***** wasting time

Rooney should have walked up to that gomez guy and headbutted him

You were dire against an average side like the States who could have opened you up on a number of occasions if they had more guile up front. You bypassed midfield at every moment, reverting to the long ball game, which makes me think that Capello really is still unsure as to how to effectively utilize the players he has. Plus, it shows that if Rooney is marked out of it you're in all sorts of trouble.

You couldn't maintain possession which really isn't a good sign for a team who wants to win a world cup. It's the most important facet of the international game and you failed miserably with it. How many times did you lose the ball cheaply or just hoof it upfield? It was terrible.

It goes to show. There's too much money in the English Prem and too little indigenous talent. All the best Prem players are foreign.

I give up Setanta I might aswell go and talk to a brick wall.

USA are not an average side anymore they are one of the most improved international teams in the game.. we had most of the american attacks covered so they didn't have chance to open us up... And we have a big man up front so why not huff ball it? it ain't pretty but it works and for the most part we kept the ball on the ground.. did you not see the build up play for the goal? Rooney had his chances and on another day could have scored them roll on Algeria and Slovenia..

I think it's hitting head against brick wall time here, some people are just totally biased and won't see things any other way so this is a pointless convo at this point.

Just repeating myself now and it's getting boring. We didn't play the best and no we didn't look like a team who will go on to win at the moment but it's the FIRST GAME. There were plenty of positives to take out of that game, we did actually make some excellent plays through the midfield, there's no law that says the ball can't be hoofed up, if it works why not? We've never played the most attractive football in the world, but there's plenty to work with there.

The teams who rack up the most goals against Algeria will qualify.

There was no positives. It was shocking. Just read the papers tomorrow. You wont get through the second round based on that result. A little realism is always important.

From someone who was slating the papers yesterday was it(?), I actually find using them as a tool to back you up now as quite amusing.

Yes read the Papers

they are the answer to everything

Well, not the tabloids... broadsheets will have a column or two about it.

Actually interesting looking at the Guardian now and seeing how people have been rating the players. Gerrard is getting the highest mark for England with 6.4, and the average is about 5. States are getting far higher marks. At least some people see that it was a bad performance.

Thats about it, not the best they could play but then again far from the worst. We did lose possession too easy with long balls, the yanks had greater possession than us.

The (British) press only do BRILLIANT! or SH!TE!

and no prizes for guessing which it will be tomorrow.

But you are saying that we were shocking and we were far from shocking. Noone in here is saying we had an amazing game, we didn't, but you can't sit there and tell me that an unbiased person would say that we were totally ****e either and that there was nothing there to draw positives from.

I think even if we had won 4 -1 you still would have come in here and made some kind of derogatory comments because you don't seem to be able to give England any credit at all.

Yes that about sums it up. We did give away too much posession and we do need to step it up considerably, especially when it gets past the group stages, but for a first game, against the hardest opposition in our group, with some players who are still finding their feet/getting used to playing together, I don't think it was actually that shabby at all. And the USA played exceptionally well, especially in the first half.

I'm not being derogatory here. It just wasn't a good performance, that's all, especially from a team who have aspirations of winning the whole tournament. I'm putting this into perspective here for a team who were apparently one of the favs prior to the start of the World Cup. You wont be winning anything based on that performance.

And again I'm saying noone here is saying we could play like that and expect to win the whole thing. But once again it is only the first game! The potential is there we just need to put it into practice, that's all.

Not really having a go at humble spirits like yours. If you were representative of the whole England fanbase then you wouldn't be setting yourself up for a fall. It's the arrogant ones who desreve their noses rubbed in it.

Hansen saying exactly what I did. Possession was terrible and they wont win anything playing like that. Shearer saying that they were very predictable. Dixon saying that it left alot to be desired.

Why are you still going on about it? Seriously we get it, you don't need to keep popping back every time someone agrees with you. Jeez.