betting odds for england

lalababa

How come England have shorter odds than Italy 7/1 v 10/1 ?? Italy have won it one time and been in the top two 3 times, England have never made it past the quaters. Italy have 4 world cups, 4 runners up , 4 thirds, England have 1 win and 1 fourth. Italy have just well beaten Belgium who are ranked 2nd in fifa. England have drawn with a god awful russian team and beaten wales who are ranked 26th. Or is it 'cause there is a lot of cash being laid on England?

PhlegmyMoses

Loads of cash will go in on England.

But besides that, England probably have a better team than Italy on paper.

Harry Palmr

lalababa wrote: »

How come England have shorter odds than Italy 7/1 v 10/1 ?? Italy have won it one time and been in the top two 3 times, England have never made it past the quaters. Italy have 4 world cups, 4 runners up , 4 thirds, England have 1 win and 1 fourth. Italy have just well beaten Belgium who are ranked 2nd in fifa. England have drawn with a god awful russian team and beaten wales who are ranked 26th. Or is it 'cause there is a lot of cash being laid on England?

er 1996 called.

Odds reflect the market as much as the reality of chances, it's why Liverpool odds are so short regardless of form!

mansize

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Loads of cash will go in on England.

But besides that, England probably have a better team than Italy on paper.

Only to UK football fans.

The England team is very ordinary and weak at the back.

lalababa

apologies 1996!

ShooterSF

17/2 on Betfair and you can lay them if you think the odds are crazy...

AllGunsBlazing

Harry Palmr wrote: »

er 1996 called.

The year football came home. Only to find a Mercedes parked in the driveway.

PhlegmyMoses

mansize wrote: »

Only to UK football fans.

The England team is very ordinary and weak at the back.

And the Italians are relatively weak in midfield and attack. That is not a vintage Italian side.

ArmaniJeanss

Market will also have factored in that the winners of Group ABCD (England in have an easier L16 game (against a 3rd placed team) than the winners of E&F who play a runner up.
Subsequent quarter final for group B winner looks easier on paper at this early stage also.

The Golden Miller

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And the Italians are relatively weak in midfield and attack. That is not a vintage Italian side.

Still better than a rubbish English team

PhlegmyMoses

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Still better than a rubbish English team

Nah, on paper, that English midfield and attack is better.

The Golden Miller

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Nah, on paper, that English midfield and attack is better.

Ye just like the last 40 years, eh. Because the names are more recognisable as they are shoved in our face every week, so they must be great? They are as average as it gets

Bobby Baccala

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Nah, on paper, that English midfield and attack is better.

That English midfield is weak. Not an ounce of creativity between the lot of them.

Green Fella

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

That English midfield is weak. Not an ounce of creativity between the lot of them.

Maybe but they probably have the best strikeforce in the tournament. They will go far and I have them backed outright. Italy and England have been more impressive than Germany so far.

Bobby Baccala

Green Fella wrote: »

Maybe but they probably have the best strikeforce in the tournament. They will go far and I have them backed outright. Italy and England have been more impressive than Germany so far.

Yeah there's no denying that, it was their strike force alone that won the game for them today.

The Golden Miller

Green Fella wrote: »

Maybe but they probably have the best strikeforce in the tournament. They will go far and I have them backed outright. Italy and England have been more impressive than Germany so far.

A fool and his money is easily parted

Green Fella

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

Yeah there's no denying that, it was their strike force alone that won the game for them today.

I looked through the squads pre tournament and Englands strikerforce instantly stood out to me. Belgiums also, but they seem to be a total mess.Roy needs to sort out the midfield and his formation though, but promising signs today for me.

Green Fella

The Golden Miller wrote: »

A fool and his money is easily parted

Yeah we get it, you hate England. Let the adults talk football please and put down the cans.

The Golden Miller

Green Fella wrote: »

Yeah we get it, you hate England. Let the adults talk football please and put down the cans.

Well no I don't hate them. It's just every tournament we hear how great their squad is, to the point of nausea, when its usually sub par. "Fool me once .......". Looks no different this year

PhlegmyMoses

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye just like the last 40 years, eh. Because the names are more recognisable as they are shoved in our face every week, so they must be great? They are as average as it gets

Okay then

XR3i

when roy hodgson took over the bookies shortened the odds

Beefy78

P4DDY2K11 wrote: »

That English midfield is weak. Not an ounce of creativity between the lot of them.

Deli Alli? No creativity?

CSF

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye just like the last 40 years, eh. Because the names are more recognisable as they are shoved in our face every week, so they must be great? They are as average as it gets

Yeah whereas we're all completely unfamiliar with the Italian striker. Italian strength is in defence, they're so well set up. In attacking areas, England have alot more to call upon. The idea that Giaccherini or Pelle would get near the England squad (never mind starting 11) is insane, and these aren't players we're unfamiliar with, they've played/play Premier League football too. So your condescending posts make absolutely no sense.

The biggest English weakness is sitting on the bench every game. And I'm not talking about Fraser Forster.

SantryRed

Green Fella wrote: »

I looked through the squads pre tournament and Englands strikerforce instantly stood out to me. Belgiums also, but they seem to be a total mess.Roy needs to sort out the midfield and his formation though, but promising signs today for me.

So basically the two strike forces that play in the PL stood out to you?

CSF

SantryRed wrote: »

So basically the two strike forces that play in the PL stood out to you?

Ironically so do the 3rd probable contender France. Largely because the Barca contingent all come from South America.

Green Fella

SantryRed wrote: »

So basically the two strike forces that play in the PL stood out to you?

I get your point, but its not really that. It is still one of the strongest leagues, and on paper Belgium have alot of attacking options. As we know games arent won on paper, I didnt back Belgium mainly because I wanted to see more from them, there is alot of hype about the side, and I didnt see much value. They were very poor in the first match. I dont really expect much from them, they still have dangerous players though so I would still fear for us tomorrow unless we improve.

I think the real story is how poor most of the teams strikers and attacking options are. England are the clear standout team in this regard in my opinion.

FatherTed

lalababa wrote: »

How come England have shorter odds than Italy 7/1 v 10/1 ?? Italy have won it one time and been in the top two 3 times, England have never made it past the quaters. Italy have 4 world cups, 4 runners up , 4 thirds, England have 1 win and 1 fourth. Italy have just well beaten Belgium who are ranked 2nd in fifa. England have drawn with a god awful russian team and beaten wales who are ranked 26th. Or is it 'cause there is a lot of cash being laid on England?

So how much did you put on Italy then?

lalababa

nothing

EuropeanSon

Most of the money put on a Euros winner will go on England. If there was any value in the bet, bookies wouldn't have a profitable business model.

There is almost never any value in the most popular option.

EuropeanSon

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Most of the money put on a Euros winner will go on England. If there was any value in the bet, bookies wouldn't have a profitable business model.

There is almost never any value in the most popular option.

Ever hear of exchanges?

If you think there's no valve in bookies, it must mean great odds in exchanges surely?

The Golden Miller

Green Fella wrote: »

Yeah we get it, you hate England. Let the adults talk football please and put down the cans.

At least I know now to never listen to adults when it comes to football