Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right, i’m also uninterested in chest-thumping claims of purity and cartoon villains. that and the baudrillard nonsese two poles of the same dialectic about morality. enough with the subject.
so, YES. tactics. too much has been obscured by emotion and national baloney.
let’s discuss
you say dier for alli was the fuckup, but i have been saying the colombian subs and actual playing football were what changed the game
here’s what the oracle has to say:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a8430156.html
below the video (i’m skipping the video) there’s a really nice write up.
funny enough, he says it’s both things. colombia’s change of shape and dier failing to cope.
then colombia changing shape again and dier dropping deeper making it easier for england at the very end.
i think we can agree with that assessment? |
My only issue is that Colombia had to make a change after the goal. They had to strengthen up top or they'd have gone out. It wasn't so much a Plan B as the only option available to them. That's why I initially agreed with the Dier change. I thought we'd absorb their inevitable attacks and then kill them with our pace (and their defence, weakened by finally having to come out) on the counter-attack, but we started passing back instead, trying to keep possession, which we've never been any good at it.
MC called it Colombia's Plan B, but that's like saying that a boxer, behind on points going into the final round has a Plan B when they go for a last minute knockout.
But the most interesting part for me was about Pekerman's switch to a 4-4-2 in the 2nd half of extra time, when England came back into it. I'd noticed Colombia had lost a lot of their momentum then but couldn't work out why, so his analysis made a lot of sense.